Westminster Hall

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 2 December 2025

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Homelessness: Funding

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the adequacy of funding to support homeless people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This debate brings together three members of the Backbench Business Committee, which agreed to schedule the debate in the first place.

The reality is that homelessness is rising. In its 2025 homelessness monitor for England, Crisis found that it is at record levels; in 2024, 300,000 individuals and families experienced the worst forms of homelessness, an increase of 22% on 2022. What is worse, Homeless Link estimates that 8,732 people were rough sleeping in England throughout June 2025, a 5% increase on the same time in 2024. Data gathered by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network shows that in London, 759 people were classed as living on the streets, 11% more than the same time last year.

London is suffering the most severe homelessness pressures in the country. London Councils reports that the capital accounts for more than half—56%—of all homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England. It also estimates that 200,000 Londoners are living in temporary accommodation arranged by their local borough. That is equivalent to one in 50 Londoners overall, and the figure includes over 97,000 children, meaning that on average at least one child in every London classroom is homeless.

As we approach Christmas, many of us will be doing our shopping, making arrangements to see family and loved ones, and probably turning the heat up a bit, but think of those sleeping rough at this time of year: cold, wet, hungry, on a park bench or in a shop doorway, in sub-zero temperatures overnight. Although there are no official statistics on how many people sleeping rough sadly die in their sleep, one only has to imagine the harsh and life-threatening conditions that people have to endure.

It is clear that local authorities are struggling to cope with the demands of homelessness. Crisis reports that 79% of local authorities struggle to meet their main rehousing duty either all the time or most of the time. That is backed up by research from Homeless Link, which shows that for many the picture has worsened in the last year, with services reducing capacity or closing down at the time they are needed most. The biggest short-term drivers of homelessness, outside the chronic undersupply of social rented housing, are the continued freeze on local housing allowance and homelessness from public institutions. Crisis found that the causes of homelessness with the biggest increases last year were people being asked to leave Home Office accommodation and people being discharged from hospitals or prisons, which saw increases of 37% and 22% respectively.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for bringing this subject forward for debate. Across the UK, a disproportionate number of homeless people are former military personnel. Does he agree that this Government need to get real about supporting those who serve this country in their hour of need? We cannot continue to abandon them.

[Bob Blackman]

Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, local authorities have a duty to assist veterans who have put their lives on the line for this country. They should be given full support.

The wider context of homelessness is important in discussions of funding. It demonstrates that if we simply allocate the funding to prevent homelessness to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local authorities, we ignore the major drivers of homelessness and will not see the reduction that we all want to see. I have raised this issue many times, and it has become increasingly clear that we need the Government to take action. They need to set out in the forthcoming homelessness strategy a clear direction for how they will tackle the drivers of homelessness, with an approach that prioritises prevention rather than cure, and securing access to stable housing with support as quickly as possible. They also need to make serious reform to funding models to ensure that they are adequate and can deliver outcomes on preventing and ending homelessness.

The cross-Government strategy must address the drivers of homelessness and be clear on the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. We await its publication, which will be a key opportunity to set a clear strategic direction from the heart of Government on the outcomes that we want to see, and to design funding to maximise the chances of achieving them.

Changes to homelessness funding are not isolated from wider Government policy. The numbers show that welfare decisions, Home Office policy changes, and the ongoing failure to end street discharge from hospitals and prisons are pushing more and more people into homelessness. The Government must consider any changes to homelessness funding alongside wider policy and the cross-Government strategy for homelessness and rough sleeping—in particular, how welfare policy decisions increase demand on local government services.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

In my constituency, Caritas provides homeless support through its day centre and supported accommodation facility. It supported over 1,000 people last year, and demand for the service has risen by 19%. Does the hon. Member agree that long-term sustainable funding would help organisations such as Caritas provide their vital services and support those who most need it?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which leads me on to the aspects of what local authorities have to do. They are the front door; they are dealing with this crisis 24/7, 365 days a year. The Government must provide them with more help with temporary accommodation costs. Last year alone, local authorities spent £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation, which often came from homelessness budgets. It is positive that TA funding is being moved into the revenue support grant, but the lack of Government subsidy for housing benefit and temporary accommodation costs means that the core issue remains unaddressed.

The welfare system and other public services must do more to prevent homelessness. The lack of social homes and the continued freeze of local housing allowance leaves people with nowhere to go. Fewer than three in every 100 homes for rent are affordable for someone who needs local housing allowance. Furthermore, according to the Crisis monitor, homelessness on discharge from public institutions—hospitals and prisons—has risen by 22%. I have raised that repeatedly in this place, but I have seen no action on it. If it does not change, councils will continue to face impossible levels of need with inadequate levels of funding.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Liverpool is paying £25 million in the current financial year to house 1,700 people in temporary accommodation, 450 of whom are children. Does he agree that, although it is welcome that temporary accommodation funding is being moved into the revenue support grant, local authorities urgently need more support, given that they spend £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation, and we need to look at raising the local housing grant?

[Bob Blackman]

I am grateful to a Liverpool MP for calling me an hon. Friend; as I spent four years at the University of Liverpool, I have a shared interest in the great city of Liverpool. I agree that we have to do something about the local housing allowance, and I believe that that was a missed opportunity in the recent Budget.

Supported accommodation funding must be addressed. The removal of ringfencing has led to many supported housing services relying on exempt housing benefit to cover the cost of provision, spurring a proliferation of rogue providers. That must be addressed, and the Government must urgently bring forward the powers introduced by my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which we are still waiting for despite deadlines having passed and the Government now technically being in breach of the law.

Fundamentally, the homelessness strategy must be backed by adequate funding models to enable an evidence-based approach to tackling homelessness. The Government have made welcome funding announcements regarding housing and homelessness—funding for rough sleeping and temporary accommodation hit £1 billion in 2025-26; 60% of the £39 billion of social and affordable housing funding has been committed to social homes; and they have committed to developing a £2.4 billion homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant for 2026-27 to 2028-29—but the fact that homelessness continues to rise is clear evidence that we need to review the adequacy of funding and the overall approach to homelessness at a systems level, via the cross-Government strategy. That includes ensuring that the new homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant enables local authorities to provide effective homelessness support in line with evidence-based best practice.

To do that, the MHCLG must ringfence the new grant, so that local authorities do not use it for purposes that do not meet the requirements in the guidance. It must also develop outcome-based scrutiny mechanisms, such as reductions in presentations to housing options through preventive work; higher assessment rates relative to presentations; the introduction of face-to-face assessments; and housing-led approaches to addressing homelessness, so that people’s ability to access a secure home, with support if needed, is prioritised over temporary solutions.

In their response to the fair funding review, the Government propose consolidating all homelessness and rough sleeping revenue grants, except for temporary accommodation grant funding, which is to be moved into the revenue support grant. That will be £2.4 billion over the next three years, matching the call from the sector and the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, of which I am co-chairman, for consolidated multi-annual funding.

Throughout that process, we should ask whether the Government are ensuring efficacy. To ensure that funding tackles homelessness, the Government must work with councils, strategic authorities and the sector to develop appropriate scrutiny and accountability mechanisms, requiring local authorities to demonstrate how the new grant funding has been used to achieve targets. In doing that, the Government must link funding to outcome-based targets, with clear lines of accountability and performance monitoring. Examples of outcome-based targets are reductions in presentations to housing options, through proactive preventive work; increases in face-to-face assessment; and the development of local housing-led approaches to addressing homelessness, which we know are the most effective ways of sustainably ending homelessness.

Although the Government did not propose including domestic abuse funding in the new consolidated grant, I am a firm believer that that might encourage local authorities to consider the intersections between homelessness and domestic abuse. In the 2023-24 financial year, domestic abuse accounted for 12,130, or 25%, of the households with children owed a relief duty.

Homelessness funding reached £1 billion for 2025-26, with two main funding pots and several smaller ones. Should that level of funding have continued over the 2026-27 and 2028-29 periods, councils would have received £3 billion. That does not match the provisional funding allocation for the next two to three years, so it is fair to ask whether that is a cut just when services need more support. Remember that the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant does not include funding for temporary accommodation. Of the £633 million allocated to the homelessness prevention grant this year, 51%—£322 million—will be allocated to temporary accommodation, so this could leave councils with just £310 million to spend on homelessness support.

At the heart of the matter are the pressures faced by temporary accommodation. Government data shows that in 2023-24, local authorities in England spent nearly £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation, including very expensive nightly paid accommodation and more specialist emergency housing such as hostels and refuges. Spending on nightly paid accommodation has increased from 6% to 30% of the total temporary accommodation bill in the past 10 years.

For the next three years, temporary accommodation funding will be separated from wider homelessness funding and included in councils’ revenue support grant. For that three-year period, councils will receive temporary accommodation funding worth £969 million, which is around £323 million a year. That was previously part of the homelessness prevention grant, for which councils had roughly the same amount of funding. I welcome the decision to separate the funding, but we should not allow local authorities to choose between paying for expensive and often unsatisfactory temporary accommodation and homelessness support.

There is concern that the impact of temporary accommodation funding reforms will be limited because of the shortfall in financial support, paid at 90% of 2011 local housing allowance rates. It is unlikely that the reforms proposed by the Government will mitigate that subsidy gap, particularly given that the proposed level of funding is similar to that in the current year.

Let me take us back to 2003, when English local authorities were allocated ringfenced Supporting People funding to commission housing support. In 2009, that ringfence was removed, enabling local authorities to decide how the funding was used in their areas. That has led to significant variation in how services are commissioned across local authorities, with some supported housing services directly funded and commissioned by local authorities and other, non-commissioned services receiving no direct grant funding from the Government. The impact is that many providers are ending up using the higher rates of exempt housing benefit to offset higher housing management costs and pay for support. Although housing benefit should not be used to pay for that support, many providers report having to do so.

Many of the problems that we have seen in the exempt sector are driven in part by reductions in funding for support and increased dependence on exempt housing benefit. Unscrupulous landlords have used the higher rates of exempt housing benefit to profit from the provision of supported accommodation, while providing poor and sometimes unsafe services. That was the core reason for my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, whose implementation we still await. When the Minister responds to the debate, she can give us the good news that we will implement that without any further delay.

A lot of good work has been done. People are more aware of the struggles of homelessness and the enormous amount of charitable work that continues to support, lobby and raise awareness for us all. The three-year grant is welcome, but homelessness continues to rise. It is clear that we need to review both the adequacy of funding and the overall approach, via the cross-Government strategy, so the next question for the Minister is when we will see that strategy actually being delivered.

Basic principles are still missing. Indexing local housing allowance to cover just the cheapest 30% of local homes is one of the most impactful measures that the Government could introduce. The cross-Government strategy must address the drivers of homelessness and be clear about the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. We cannot forget that local authorities are the front door—they are dealing with the crisis literally every single day, and 24 hours a day at that—and we are still waiting for the protections and regulations enshrined by my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act to be enacted.

Let us not forget these points. Homelessness is rising. More than half of homelessness cases are in London. The cost of temporary accommodation is rising. Council budgets are shrinking. That is all while thousands are sleeping rough, on a sofa or on the street. The weather will be changing and temperatures will be dropping in the coming weeks. We stand here and call for change, and change must come.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. To accommodate all those who wish to speak, I ask Members to impose on themselves a four-minute limit.

09:48

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for initiating this debate. I ask Members to note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a patron of my local homelessness charity, St Petrock’s.

As the largest urban centre for a very wide geography, Exeter has always had a pull factor for people whose housing situation deteriorates. We know that under 14 years of Tory government, homelessness increased substantially again after a period under the last Labour Government when it fell to historic lows due to political attention and drive. The factors driving homelessness are often complex, ranging from benefit changes and poverty to family breakdown, family violence or substance abuse. Researchers at the University of Exeter also look at the little-understood link between acquired brain injury and homelessness. Most people sleeping rough have experienced trauma, either as a child or—as with the veterans who find themselves homeless—in their working life, serving our nation.

According to CoLab Exeter, the city’s homelessness cases have the highest prevalence of complex support needs in the region. I am sad to say that Exeter has one of the highest rates of homeless deaths in the country. That is due in part to the pernicious impact of the highly addictive and dangerous drug Spice on our homeless population. I would like to see that scourge gripped by national authorities.

In this context, there are some bright spots, but there are also areas of significant concern. First, I am pleased that the Government have recently added a further £500,000 to Exeter city council’s budget for homelessness from the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, taking our budget this year to £1.8 million. That new money will partly support substance abuse services and children in temporary accommodation. I thank the Minister for that. However, our city, despite being the economic driver for the region and a fast-growing city, sits in a two-tier local government system, with Devon county council as the upper-tier authority with a far larger core budget. Supporting homeless people has historically been divided between the remits of Devon county council and Exeter city council, with housing a city council responsibility and the provision of care and support to an individual a county responsibility. That is where we have far more serious problems.

After proposing at a budget meeting in 2023 to cut its entire £1.4 million homelessness budget for this financial year, the majority of which is spent in Exeter, Devon significantly reduced that budget from £1.4 million to £1 million and then to just £500,000 next year, or to zero; it is not entirely clear to stakeholders. For this year, I am told that the grants have not been paid in full. One stakeholder was informed that they would get Q1 and Q2 payments and a smaller payment—about half of one quarter payment—for the remaining two quarters of the year. There has been little to no communication to service delivery partners, including our local YMCA, which delivers transitional housing for previously homeless people, about the funding decision since it was proposed about 18 months ago.

Providers are therefore working on the assumption that they will lose a majority of their funding from April next year. That means that vital emergency off-the-streets bed spaces and longer-term supported accommodation will be lost. The local support pathway out of homelessness will be significantly damaged, with no funding from other sources available to replace that lost funding.

One organisation, Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, has confirmed that its funding for this financial year has been reduced by 28%, after 10 years without inflationary increases. Its contract with Devon county council ends at the end of March 2026. There is a realistic possibility that Gabriel House, the main hostel provision for people transitioning out of rough sleeping, may close. Gabriel House accommodates 42 former rough sleepers and provides the main stepping stone from the street to more stable housing.

Exeter is already feeling the impact of the decision. At November’s annual rough sleeper count, our team saw a significant increase in the number of people they identified sleeping on the city streets. Another provider, Julian House, has had to close services, as funding to Exeter city council from the rough sleeper initiative and rough sleeper accommodation programme has been cut over previous years.

Labour introduced the Supporting People programme in 2003 as a ringfenced fund, which successfully reduced homelessness and rough sleeping, along with providing a net saving to the Exchequer due to the impacts on other budgets such as health, criminal justice and so on. However, ever since the ringfence was removed in 2009 and the budget absorbed into local authority core grants under the coalition Government, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, local authorities have been diverting funding to other uses, with the results that we see daily on the streets. I therefore ask the Minister to give serious consideration to reintroducing the ringfence on homelessness prevention funding from central Government to local authorities.

I have received helpful information from the Department, through the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, about the replacement of the rough sleeping initiative and the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant. However, given that the funding for next year is wrapped up in the local government financial settlement, stakeholders and delivery partners are, at this point, assessing their ability to make it to the end of March without knowing what funding will be made available. That will have a destabilising impact on homelessness prevention services. RSI contracts end in March, so providers will potentially be winding down the projects and beginning redundancy processes in advance of those contracts ending.

I encourage the Minister to view homelessness prevention and elimination through a Total Place-style model in the upcoming homelessness strategy, which is essential if we are to tackle multiple disadvantage rather than continually managing crisis. Although Total Place was mentioned in the Budget, it was limited in its development to five mayoral authorities, which risks leaving places such as Exeter behind at a time when instability is accelerating. Exeter could be an ideal pilot for a Total Place model in a smaller city undergoing transition and, hopefully, devolution, allowing us to demonstrate how integrated preventive investment can work effectively outside larger metropolitan areas.

I pay tribute to the excellent organisations in Exeter that, despite pressures on capacity and funding, have provided vital support for our homeless population and have a wider beneficial impact in our city, including St Petrock’s, the YMCA, CoLab, Gabriel House and Julian House. These organisations do not just need an adequate sum of funding; they also need clarity on where that funding will come from.

Funding uncertainty is part of a long-standing challenge embedded by two-tier delivery of local services—one that I am hopeful will be addressed by local government reorganisation. That is why Exeter city council has applied for unitary status on expanded boundaries. I look forward to working on that with MHCLG.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I am afraid that that was not a good example of a four-minute speech. Jim Shannon will show us how it should be done.

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Vickers, for the chance to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for leading today’s debate. He always leads on homelessness issues, whether in this Chamber or the other, and we thank him for all that he does.

Our housing provision differs across the United Kingdom: in the devolved nations it is different from the provision here in England. One issue I must highlight is the funding that we receive via the block grant, which is used to support the most central services in Northern Ireland. I believe that we need to improve the adequacy of that funding.

I echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) made about veterans. Last winter, I sat out for about an hour in the cold weather—it was enough for me—with a veteran who was trying to highlight the very important issue of homelessness for veterans. I look forward to the Minister telling us what will be done across the United Kingdom.

In the Assembly back home, the Communities Minister Gordon Lyons has announced an additional £2.5 million funding package for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to boost homelessness prevention services. Homelessness across Northern Ireland is rife; the stats are shocking. There is not a day in my office back home in Newtownards, or indeed in the Ballynahinch office, when we do not have homelessness brought to us as a constituency issue—especially within Ards and North Down, which continues to be such a popular area to live in. The figures speak for themselves. In Ards and North Down, 1,233 households are presenting as homeless and 898 households have been accepted as full-duty applicants; in other words, they were in priority need.

We hear so often what “homeless” means, but full-duty applicants are the priority and in many cases they have not intentionally made themselves homeless. People buy houses over the years, rent them out and then want to release their capital and be better off. We cannot blame them for doing that, but it does put pressure on homelessness teams.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems in Northern Ireland and across the UK is the lack of affordable homes? Many families are finding that that is the difficulty with getting on the housing ladder, and there are social housing issues as well.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right. I have been presented with those cases in my office many times. People want to get a mortgage and cannot get one, because of the price of houses in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, they are the highest in all Northern Ireland; indeed, they are comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom.

I put on the record my thanks to my local housing team and particularly to the manager Eileen Thompson, to Irene May and to the many others who go the extra mile every day to help those in need. We do what we can with what we have, but because of the skyrocketing demand in my constituency and across the whole country, funding is not stretching far enough. Some 29,000 households in Northern Ireland have homeless status, and the policy approaches are not sufficient to meet the scale of demand. Although the Northern Ireland Executive receives money through the block grant, which is allocated accordingly, the figures show how much of an issue homelessness is, and there is more that we can do on home building.

My ask to the Minister—it is not her responsibility where the money goes, but maybe she can pass this on to the right person in the Cabinet—is a commitment to social housing delivery across the whole country and better integration with counterparts in the devolved nations, to ensure that we can support those who are in desperate need of safe and secure housing.

It is essential that Westminster provide stronger and more consistent support through fairer and more responsive Barnett consequentials. We have argued for many years that the Barnett consequentials do not reflect Northern Ireland’s needs. If they did, perhaps we could address the issue of temporary accommodation and homelessness, keep pace with demand and deliver long-term solutions. We must take the necessary steps to make the United Kingdom a safe and secure place to call home.

09:58

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is great to speak under your chairship, Mr Vickers.

On Sunday, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), my wife and I took part in the Doncaster 10k with more than 3,000 other people. We chose to raise money for Doncaster Housing for Young People, of which we are patrons. I am pleased to say that we have raised more than £2,000 between us already. Doncaster Housing for Young People is a remarkable organisation that supports young adults who are vulnerable and at risk of homelessness. It not only provides decent accommodation, but supports them in gaining key life skills and by preparing them for the world of work. That means that, when young adults are ready to move into permanent accommodation, they have the physical and mental means to support themselves.

Why is that important to me? I come to this debate not just as a Member of Parliament but as someone who was homeless as a child. I know what it feels like when the word “home” means a room that is not really yours, and your whole life depends on decisions that are taken away from you. It somehow took until the 1970s to grasp what should have been obvious: for someone trying to recover from trauma, illness, addiction or financial catastrophe, a safe, stable home is not a luxury—it is the foundation on which everything else rests.

Today, the scale of the crisis is more stark than ever. Research in my own area of Doncaster and in the South Yorkshire area shows that 61% of people sleeping rough in December 2023 had slept rough before. Nationally, that figure is closer to 13%. That tells us something important: our system is managing crisis; it is not resolving it. We pour billions into temporary fixes, with families stuck in one room for months or years, schools disrupted, work made impossible, mental health deteriorating and people cut off from various networks that keep them safe and hopeful. We then act surprised when they fall back into homelessness and the cycle begins once again. A constituent of mine, a mum in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, is living in a room with a baby, and of a night time she has to go out to the service station to use its microwave to warm the baby’s milk. That is ridiculous. How is that possible in this day and age?

Housing First offers a way to break that cycle. In simple terms, it turns the old model on its head: instead of asking people to prove that they are housing ready before they get a permanent home, Housing First starts with the home and wraps support around it. It means a settled, self-contained tenancy as a first step—not the last—and intensive, flexible, person-centred support to help people keep that home. It does not make help conditional on being abstinent or already in treatment, but gives people the support they need to tackle those issues head-on. It offers that support for as long as it is needed, not just the length of a short-term programme. We are not talking about a theory; the three Housing First pilots in Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region and the west midlands have already supported over a thousand people with some of the most complex needs into independent tenancies. Around 84% of those tenancies were sustained after three years, which is remarkable given the level of trauma, poor health and repeated homelessness that people had experienced.

What do we need to do now? First, I urge Ministers to commit to a national Housing First strategy, making it the default offer for people who are repeatedly homeless or have more complex needs, and not a small pilot on the margins. That strategy should include clear targets for the number of Housing First tenancies. Secondly, we need long-term ringfenced funding. Programmes such as the rough sleeping initiative and the single homelessness accommodation programme are vital, but local areas need multi-year certainty so that they can recruit and retain specialist staff and build proper services, not live hand to mouth.

Thirdly, we should link Housing First to the Labour Government’s mission on house building. We have committed to 1.5 million new homes and the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. A share of those generally affordable homes should be reserved for Housing First. Finally, I hope Ministers will prioritise areas with high levels of repeat homelessness, including Doncaster and South Yorkshire, as early beneficiaries of any expansion.

I know that many volunteers out there this Christmas will be helping the most vulnerable and the homeless, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for doing that, but if I could ask Santa for one Christmas wish this year, it would be that those volunteers could be redirected into something else, and that homelessness be ended for good.

10:03

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

I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate.

We have Shelter’s vicious cycle:

“No home? No address. No address? No bank account. No bank account? No job. No job? No home.”

Rural homelessness is a unique challenge. In a way, it is unlike homelessness in urban centres; it is less visible, which makes it harder to tackle. I suppose people always imagine quaint villages and rolling hills, so the association with homelessness does not necessarily fit, which perhaps makes it easier to overlook. There are many people in my constituency who sofa surf, staying temporarily with family and friends, and therefore are not classified as statutorily homeless. There is a hidden homelessness crisis. If hon. Members came to visit the Hope Centre in Minehead with me, they would see the excellent volunteers from the Baptist church support the many people who are sofa surfing in Minehead and west Somerset.

In 2024-25, 30% of people in mid Devon became homeless because friends or family were either no longer able or willing to provide accommodation. That figure is about the same in Somerset. Homelessness in rural areas has increased every year since 2018, with the most recent statistics indicating there are around 28,000 homeless people in rural parts of the country. They are most highly represented in the south-west. At the end of 2023, homelessness in the countryside had jumped by 40%—nearly half. An English Rural report found that rural areas receive 65% less funding for homelessness per capita compared with urban areas.

We need more social housing. I had a look at what the CPRE said about rural homelessness following the Government’s publishing of the housing figures in June. In the south-west, almost 65,000 people are on waiting lists for social housing. Figures from 2023 showed that just 8% of homes in rural areas were affordable, whereas that figure is 17% in urban areas. Without building the homes, people will continue to face destitution and homelessness. The Liberal Democrat manifesto last year included a commitment to build 150,000 social houses. I am proud to say that in Minehead, Somerset council has built social housing for the first time in a generation. The Liberal Democrat Mid Devon council is making good headway. Given the comments from the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), I will make sure that he gets an update from Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council.

I always tell people there is no point in talking about affordable housing if someone earns only £20,000 a year. What we need is social housing, not affordable housing, and we need it in Tiverton and Minehead first and foremost.

10:06

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate.

The latest annual rough sleeping snapshot has recorded thousands of people sleeping rough—just 2% below the highest level ever recorded. I am afraid to say that it is not getting better quickly enough. Monthly data still showed a 5% rise in rough sleeping between last June and this June. Temporary accommodation has already reached record highs in the recent period. At the very moment when demand for housing is soaring, there is still not enough support for the people who need it most. Nearly half of the homelessness services that we have across the country are now reported to be at risk of closure, and the number of bed spaces available has fallen by 43% over the last 17 years.

As with so much that has gone wrong in this country over the last couple of decades, the root cause of all this is the underfunding and public sector cuts that we saw under the previous Government, led by a short-termist, narrow focus that wilfully ignored the tried and tested ways for economies to get out of the growth doom loop that we have been in. What we need to do is stop storing up more problems in years to come and start addressing things like the homelessness emergency head-on. That means ensuring that services are properly funded to provide safe, year-round bed spaces. It means making sure that new regulations on supported accommodation do not unintentionally punish good providers. It means reversing Tory Government decisions that actively drive homelessness, most notably the freeze to the local housing allowance and the benefit cap—things that make it almost impossible for many households to access the stable housing that they need.

In addition, we need cross-departmental working. Ending homelessness cannot be the responsibility of just one single Department. Decisions in health, justice and welfare, immigration—Departments across the board—all shape who becomes homeless and who does not. This is not the sort of thing that might get the pulses racing, but we need to ensure shared accountability and a shared delivery agenda across Government, not just here in Westminster and Whitehall but through the devolved layers of government, especially at the new strategic authority level.

We all come into politics for good reasons. The moral case for action is clear, as is the financial case. In that vein, I want to highlight the importance, from an efficiency perspective, of Housing First. The Housing First model has consistently demonstrated its effectiveness, here and internationally. It is based on a simple principle: first and foremost providing people with a stable home, then wrapping support around them. It prioritises dignity, choice and long-term stability, and by dealing with the root causes of social issues, it helps the state save money.

The Government’s own evaluation of the three national Housing First pilots confirms what frontline service providers have long known: the model delivers good value for money, achieves remarkable tenancy sustainment rates, reduces rough sleeping, and leads to improvements across health, wellbeing and wider metrics. Crucially, it works for people with the most complex needs—those who have been systematically failed by traditional models of accommodation. Housing First can help us break the cycle of homelessness, crisis care and retraumatisation, which leads to more homelessness. When properly funded and scaled, it can prevent rough sleeping, reduce demand on the NHS and the criminal justice system, and help people to rebuild their lives for good.

If we are serious about combating homelessness, in particular rough sleeping, we should protect and expand Housing First. That requires long-term, ringfenced funding, and a national commitment to scaling provision and to ensuring that it is embedded in the wider homelessness strategy for Government.

I thank the Chair and colleagues for their attention, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

10:11

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, which is important for the country and, indeed, for Birmingham.

In Birmingham, more than 25,000 families are currently on the housing register, and shockingly, around 10,000 children live in temporary accommodation. In some cases, families are split, with a father and some children living in temporary accommodation in one part of the city, while the mother lives with other children in another part. That causes me great anxiety not only because of the impact on mental health, but because of the direct impact on families and children. Children may not be able to go to local schools because they have no fixed abode.

Another growing problem in Birmingham—and certainly in Birmingham Perry Barr—is rough sleeping. On some of the high streets in my constituency—Soho Road, Villa Road in Lozells, Aston Lane—and at the One Stop Shopping centre, desperate individuals are out in the cold, looking for some small change for a hot drink in weather that will only get worse. Some of them have difficult and complex needs, some are drug addicts and some have had problems with alcohol. There are also people who have been in the military. I am not going to mention his name, but I know of a young man, who I think is in his mid-30s, living in temporary accommodation but without the support that he needs. He is frequently out on the streets until the early hours of the morning. That, in itself, can cause a degree of antisocial behaviour because, with increased crime and people on the street late at night, there are always ramifications in a local neighbourhood.

I totally agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East about ringfenced funding. That is so important in Birmingham, which has been run by Labour for the past decade. It is not just because Government funding has been reduced but because there has been a high degree of funding mismanagement by Birmingham’s Labour-run council. Ringfenced funding for housing will ensure that people get the support they deserve.

It is not just about the funding that central Government provides to councils under the Barnett formula but about the recent Pride in Place funding the Government have announced. Edgbaston, Erdington, Hall Green, Hodge Hill, Ladywood, Northfield, Selly Oak and Yardley—eight constituencies in Birmingham, all with Labour MPs. But which constituency did not get any funding? Birmingham Perry Barr. We only have to Google or ChatGPT search the deprivation indices to see that Birmingham Perry Barr has among the highest. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues about why Birmingham Perry Barr has been excluded?

10:15

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate—Mr Vickers, you and I know he got a real grilling from the Backbench Business Committee when he proposed the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), the chair of the APPG, for her work in this important area.

I declare an interest: before coming to this place, I was a project outreach worker for a brilliant homelessness charity in my Harlow constituency called Streets2Homes. I pay particular tribute to its chief executive officer, Kerrie Eastman, to her manager, Lisa Twomey, and to my former colleagues Jamie and Alice for all their work to support people in Harlow who are rough sleeping or sofa surfing—as we often discuss, sofa surfers are the hidden homeless.

My role was very varied, but one thing I had to do was go out into the community—sometimes into a wooded area, and sometimes into industrial estates—to find people who were rough sleeping, to encourage them to register with our charity and to support them into secure accommodation. I echo the comments made by Members across the House about the importance of the Housing First approach to tackling rough sleeping.

I also welcome the Government’s commitment to an additional £1 billion of funding to tackle rough sleeping. However, we also need to recognise that there are a multitude of reasons for people becoming homeless. Sometimes, it is addiction to drugs, alcohol or gambling, and sometimes it is mental health issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) correctly identified the root causes coming down to trauma. How we support people who have faced trauma is really important.

Before I worked for that homelessness charity, as people know, I was a teacher. I do not want to get into the politics of why I left teaching, because this has not been that sort of debate. However, what I will say is that, within my first two weeks of working for a home- lessness charity, a man came in who had recently become homeless. He was a former teacher who had had a mental breakdown, turned to alcohol and found himself homeless. It was a seminal moment for me, because I thought that it is only by the grace of God that our positions were not reversed. There is a saying that we are only ever two payslips away from homelessness—with the cost of living crisis and the increased costs of the private rented sector, it may now be fewer than two payslips. It really struck me that we could all potentially be affected by this issue.

Harlow council is in the 40% most deprived lower-tier authorities, and at any one time there could be more than 250 people in temporary accommodation. When I was a district councillor in Harlow, one of the last questions I asked was about the cost of temporary accommodation. Harlow is quite a small district council, but it still cost roughly £2 million a year to house people in temporary accommodation. Clearly, if we can get this right, there is a saving to be made.

My wife is currently a teacher, and she speaks about having to visit families in temporary accommodation. We recognise how difficult it is for young people growing up in such accommodation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme mentioned. It hugely affects their schooling.

I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrow East—there is Harrow-Harlow agreement in Westminster Hall today—on the issues affecting people leaving prison. We have had a number of people come into Streets2Homes who had been released from prison with nowhere to go. Clearly, if we want people not to reoffend, that is a huge issue.

I am running out of time, so I will quickly say that I support the Housing First approach, but I am concerned about what supported accommodation is and what it is not. I am concerned about people claiming to provide supported accommodation and not actually providing it. Under the last Labour Government, we brought down the number of rough sleepers. Let us make sure this Labour Government do the same.

10:20

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, and for his continued advocacy on this topic. He has been a reliable voice in this space for quite some time.

I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the latest statistics, but today I will also make the case that tackling homelessness is the right thing to do not only for individuals and communities but for public spending and our economy. We have done so much already, but there is a lot more to do, so I will share with colleagues some details about the cost of temporary accommodation, particularly in London, and then propose some possible solutions and make some requests of the Minister.

Currently, 56% of homeless households living in temporary accommodation are in London. In fact, one in 50 Londoners live in temporary accommodation, which is nearly 200,000 people, including 97,000 children. London boroughs collectively spend £5 million a day on temporary accommodation, with the rate of temporary accommodation in Westminster reaching 3%. In 2023-24, Westminster city council spent £95 million on temporary accommodation, and in the same year spending on temporary accommodation in the City of London increased by 52%.

It is positive that there are plans to spend capital money on temporary accommodation, which is part of the solution, but we are now in a situation where the average household in London spends £202 every year, or 11% of their council tax bill, on temporary accommodation. The net current expenditure on homelessness in London has risen by 42% since last year, compared with a 16% increase across the rest of England. And of the 4,254 households in temporary accommodation in Westminster, 768 are in bed and breakfasts, which are an appalling place to grow up, and only 244 are in local authority or housing association stock.

The most expensive type of temporary accommodation is in the private rented sector and paid for nightly. It is the most common type in many London boroughs, including Westminster, where it is used for 1,684 of the 4,254 households in temporary accommodation. Local housing allowance has been frozen, and analysis by the Local Government Association shows that local authorities are due to spend an additional £400 million a year from their own funds on temporary accommodation. At present, 30 in every 1,000 households in the City of Westminster and seven in every 1,000 households in the City of London live in temporary accommodation.

This Government have done a lot. We have committed £39 billion to increase the supply of genuinely affordable housing, and my own local authorities have received significantly more money to tackle some of the worst forms of rough sleeping. I am grateful for all the work the Minister is doing, and for how open-minded and open-spirited she is about tackling this problem. All of us in this Chamber have come forward to solve some of these problems.

Will the Minister bring local government and housing associations together for an emergency meeting, to have a frank conversation about the ludicrous situation of local authorities driving up the cost of temporary accommodation because they are competing with each other to procure it? Will she update the House on the Office for Value for Money report on the cost of temporary accommodation? And will she consider using funding models that have been used in the past that help people to transition from leased temporary accommodation into permanent social housing?

These families live and have children growing up in London communities, and we simply cannot continue putting them out to other local authorities that I know have struggles with identifying temporary accommodation. I also know how seriously this Government take this issue, and I firmly believe that we will be able to end the scourge of rough sleeping and tackle the temporary accommodation crisis if we have the will and the spirit to get it done.

10:24

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate hon. Members on their speeches so far.

The homelessness crisis is a national scandal, and it has a human cost that we all see in our constituencies. In Oldham, there are 517 households, including 633 children, in temporary accommodation. Over half of those are in nightly procured accommodation, and a quarter are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Even though we call it temporary accommodation, many young people are there for such a significant part of their childhood that it becomes their home, and these are not homes that any of us present would choose to live in. Over 10% of those households in Oldham are in temporary accommodation for between two and five years, and 32% are in temporary accommodation for between one and two years. For a child growing up in primary school, those are the formative years of their childhood and they make a significant difference to their development and education.

When procuring temporary accommodation, local authorities are often looking further afield. There are many out-of-borough placements, but even within a borough, with local transport not always as it should be, it can be very difficult for parents to get their children to school. It can be difficult for working parents to rely on family members to support childcare before or after school. In practice, it means that many young people are missing out on a good education and their wider support networks during that period.

A lot has been said about the impact of local authority budgets. All of us appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to reconcile not just the financial cost to local government but the human cost to families, particularly children. But let us be honest: this is a gold rush for private landlords, who are absolutely rinsing the taxpayer dry for substandard accommodation. The average cost of nightly accommodation in Oldham is between £25 and £35 a night, and those are single rooms. The accommodation that I visited with the Shared Health Foundation in Oldham had three mattresses with a cooker, a sink and an extractor unit that was supposed to take out the cooking smells from that room, but went nowhere.

I met a woman who had fled domestic violence, and she was contemplating going back to her abuser because she was fearful of what staying in that temporary accommodation meant for her children. I visited the room next door and spoke to her 14-year-old son, who wanted to be an engineer when he left school. He could not get any sleep because he was put on a mattress in the corner of that attic room, and there were holes in the skirting board where, every single night, the mice were chomping through the woodwork and keeping him awake. He showed me the holes in the wall that he was using old socks to fill because he did not want the mice to come through into the room. Mice and rats were running through the whole building. A six-room HMO used for temporary accommodation in a town such as Oldham brings the landlord £65,000 a year in income.

We are also seeing family homes being taken off the housing market, because these private landlords will snap up terraced houses and convert every single room into a letting room for temporary accommodation, charging £25 to £35 a night. As an example, one person—an Oldham councillor who drives around the town in a Rolls-Royce, for God’s sake—had a facility from which eight children and 16 adults had to be removed because of health and safety violations. These were attic rooms again, filled with mattresses and shared facilities, and he was on a £7,000-a-month contract for just that one property.

We have to deal with the human costs, but the system has to be put in order. The Minister is one of the good people in government who absolutely believe that, but she has a job to do with her Home Office colleagues. That is not the Minister, I should say, but there is certainly a culture within the Home Office. Unfortunately, I would say they have a disregard for the impact of their policies on local communities, whether that be the move away from extended support for people moving out of temporary accommodation or even the artificial market that they are driving with the procurement of dispersal accommodation for asylum seekers. If we do not have a whole-of-Government approach to dealing with the housing crisis, we will just not solve it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

We have three remaining speakers and 10 minutes, so you have about three minutes each.

10:29

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to contribute with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. He has focused homeless prevention, but we need also to think seriously about homeless recovery and permanence as we move forward.

It is right that Housing First provides that blueprint for us. I thank Professor Nicholas Pleace at the University of York for all his work on that, and for showing the value to people as well as the economy of putting housing first. We need to be able to support the transition into Housing First, particularly changing accommodation. We are trying to retrofit our hostels to ensure that there are single-based units to accommodate people in that path to permanence. I also draw the Minister’s attention to some of the work the Salvation Army has done. We have a NAPpad, which is a temporary unit where people experiencing chronic street homelessness can see a transition step into accommodation, by having a very simplified unit which gives them the feeling of independence but comes before taking that big step into Housing First.

I agree with colleagues that we need to look at the local housing allowance again. It is far too limited. It is almost at 50% in York, which goes nowhere near the costs. The local authority then has to pick up the tab for the differentials that people experience. That is unsustainable, not least as we have the lowest funded unitary authority in the country yet far from the most affluent. I also have my eye on the Department for Work and Pensions budget. We spent £31.8 billion on housing support, so I urge the Government to look again at rent controls, because we are seeing a spike in the escalation of housing costs in the private rented sector, which is often where people find themselves. That is unsustainable. People are falling out of housing but cannot get back in. Looking at rent controls is important, alongside social build, which we know is really needed as well.

Supporting People has been mentioned. That was introduced by the last Labour Government and was absolutely a game changer in recognising the holistic needs. We have heard about the financial and health risks people have, but also the levels of trauma. We do not have a real focus on trauma capacity to support people. Supporting People did keep people in their homes, provide support, build resilience and gave people independence and confidence so they could manage their own affairs and be able to sustain their living. I trust we can look again at how we can ringfence that money and ensure we address those complex needs. As York introduces its focus round a multidisciplinary, multi-agency, independent team to provide that support, we need to ensure we do not only move people out from the streets into temporary accommodation, but also break the cycle of homelessness into the future.

10:32

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Before coming to this place, I worked on the frontline of homelessness policy at the charity St Mungo’s and also in the housing industry for over 15 years, as well as being cabinet member for housing at Medway council. Those experiences taught me how quickly people can fall into crisis when systems fail, and how powerful the right interventions can be when they are properly funded and sustained. It also highlighted how complex the homelessness landscape is, and how important it is that we have an integrated Housing First approach, driven by evidence.

Under the Tories, we saw rough sleeping more than double between 2010 and its peak, while local authorities faced a significant real terms reduction in core spending power—the very budgets that funded homelessness prevention. As a result, the system has become crisis-led, reactive and structurally incapable of meeting demand. Most strikingly, the Everyone In scheme demonstrated what is possible when homelessness is treated with the urgency it deserves, with over 37,000 people brought in off the streets overnight. It also highlighted the clear truth that rough sleeping is not an unsolvable issue, but a resource one.

When we talk about homelessness, we are not only talking about those who are rough sleeping. We are also talking about those who are sofa surfing, hidden homelessness, and thousands of families who are placed in temporary accommodation, often miles from their schools, support networks and places of work. For example, many London councils are placing people in my constituency, driving up prices locally but also putting a real pressure on an already overstretched local authority.

The scale of this crisis has got to the point where temporary accommodation has become a parallel housing system in its own right. Unfortunately it is no longer a safety net. Instead it is a symptom of a system under acute strain, and represents one of the clearest arguments for long-term, sustainable funding for homelessness prevention.

The Government’s commitment to significantly expand the supply of genuinely affordable and social homes will help to ease the relentless pressure on temporary accommodation, as more families can access stable, long-term housing, rather than being trapped in the cycle of emergency placements. However, we must be honest about these structural issues and we cannot shy away from addressing them at their root. I therefore urge the Minister, whose work I really respect in this area, to look closely at the local housing allowance and ensure it is set at a level that reflects real rental markets. It will be one of the most effective levers we have to preventing homelessness at scale, and it must be a part of any credible long-term strategy.

Finally, our approach to ending homelessness has been discussed for many years. The solutions that can work are ready and available. Now is the time for action.

10:35

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers and I thank the chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this debate.

Winter is coming and the temperatures are dropping. I remember a particularly bitter winter 28 years ago, in 1997, when a new Labour Government, with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, opened up Admiralty House to 60 young people to serve as a winter shelter. That was as powerful symbol of the change that came from that Government. I remember a certain Conservative MP, Crispin Blunt, was not happy with this scheme. He said that it would reduce a historic building to a flagship for undesirables. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government, I have to say. In subsequent years, homelessness was indeed slashed by that Labour Government, but sadly, during the last 14 years under the Conservatives, it has risen again. This year, thankfully, this Government are investing £1 billion in pursuit of ending homelessness and rough sleeping. I am pleased that this winter we have topped that up with a further £84 million cash boost.

I will talk a bit about what can work. In Rochdale, we are seeing the tangible results of what happens when there is sustained investment and a relentless focus on combining early intervention schemes with investment in temporary accommodation options that actually get people back on their feet and build better, more sustainable pathways out of homelessness. Rochdale council has seen a 79% reduction in B&B placements compared with November 2024. That is the difference that a Labour council can make when it is working with the Labour Government. I pay particular tribute to Hannah Courtney-Adamson and her team at Rochdale council for all their work in this area, but of course, there are also lots of people on the ground who make such a difference to charities such as the Army of Kindness in Rochdale, Petrus, Sanctuary Trust and Angie’s Angels, who do fabulous work with people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.

The provision of affordable housing is not keeping pace with demand. In Rochdale, over 7,000 households are on the housing register and we have almost 1,500 live homelessness cases. That is precisely why we need to build more homes for rent. The £39 billion we are investing in affordable and social homes is ultimately the only way out of this crisis. In the meantime, the private renting sector is often the only option, but rising rent prices and cruel section 21 evictions are cited by Rochdale council as the main cause of homelessness, and make the private rented sector impossible for many. That is why I am so proud that this Government has abolished section 21 evictions.

Finally, I will say something about the need to tackle homelessness among veterans. It should be a source of national shame that those who served our nation cannot find a home, or they find a safety net filled with holes when they end up on the streets. We are proud of our support networks for veterans in Rochdale, and I am pleased that the council is renovating Denehurst House, a Victorian manor house, and turning it into five new apartments for veterans. I pay tribute to Get Together After Serving for every bit of work they do in this area. Finally, the people of Rochdale really care about fellow Rochdalians who fall on hard times and have no roof over their head. As a Government, we will be judged by how quickly we tackle this crisis—not just in winter, but all year round.

10:39

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to take part in this debate about the adequacy of funding to support homeless people. At the outset, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for securing this debate. I know how important this topic is to him, and his forensic opening speech this morning emphatically underlined that. I am confident I speak for all sides of the House when I say how appreciated his tireless efforts have been to address the tragedy of homelessness. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.

Just over a month ago, I had the pleasure of coming to this place and hearing 17 speeches from a range of hon. Members on the issue of homelessness. Some of them are here again today and some are not. I said at the time that homelessness is a “social tragedy” wherever it occurs and for whatever reason. That we are back here again shows both the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and its significance to hon. Members across the House.

Unfortunately, since the last debate, things have got worse rather than better. The future cost of living looks worse—certainly in the wake of last week’s rather gloomy Budget. The future of house building and the Government’s manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes appear to be in dire straits, and the state of local government finances again appears bleak and unlikely to improve. On top of all of that, the long-awaited homelessness strategy, first pledged in the Government’s manifesto a year and a half ago, continues to be late and remains unpublished.

The strategy was first promised to us in 2024, with the publication repeatedly said to be forthcoming. We were then repeatedly told by the Minister’s predecessor that it was due for publication following the conclusion of the spending review—which was six months ago. In a parliamentary question answered just last week we continued to be told that it will be published “later this year”. It is 2 December today and the year is running out. It may be advent, the season of waiting, but there are many who consider this to be an unacceptable and damaging delay, particularly the charities and homeless people waiting for the Government to take serious action. It would be a very welcome early Christmas present if the Minister were to announce its publication this morning.

In saying that, I acknowledge that the Government have not been totally idle. They have introduced some additional funding: a £69.9 million uplift to the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, an additional £10.9 million for supporting children experiencing homelessness, and £3 million for the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment programme. The funding is welcome, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said in his opening speech and others have mentioned, funding must come with strategy and purpose and that is something we are yet to see.

As I said in this Chamber in October:

“prevention must be at the heart of any national strategy for tackling homelessness”.—[Official Report, 21 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 312WH.]

That was a central focus in the last Government’s approach which produced £2.4 billion of funding to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness including the rough sleeping initiative and £547 million over the period from April 2022 to March 2025 before schemes such as the RSI were rolled up into one by the current Government. The rough sleeping initiative provided locally led tailored support and services for rough sleepers, providing direction and strategy at the most local levels.

The Minister’s Department has so far failed to provide itself and its fellow Departments with a national strategy. Simply spending money will not do the job, and funding without purpose or direction can actually damage efforts to achieve the critical goal of ending homelessness.

Much of the responsibility and funding for tackling homelessness lies with local government. Bills for homelessness accommodation have soared to £3.8 billion across 2024-2025—a 25% increase in a single year. There are now a record number of people in temporary accommodation, including 169,050 children in England—a 12% increase in a year. The result of that is that councils are now warning that homelessness poses one of the biggest threats to their financial viability.

Homelessness is a statutory demand-led and highly acute pressure on local government. The Government’s answer so far has not been to provide more support, but to take money away from many councils as part of their so-called fair funding formula. In introducing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has called their “unfair funding” model for local authorities the Government are funnelling money away from councils predominantly in the south to send to councils predominantly in the north. It is hard to see that as anything other than a partisan cash grab and a punitive targeting of many well-run councils, especially penalising those who have historically kept council taxes low and controlled spending better.

Some of the most affected areas, including the south- east, are witnessing a large rise in homelessness and simultaneously a potentially catastrophic drop in funding thanks to the fair funding policy. How does that reconcile with the need to go further to tackle this soaring issue? The answer is that it does not. It certainly does not help that councils are being punished and losing money for the crime of being comparatively well run when they are still trying to play their role in providing temporary accommodation to those 126,040 households.

[Chris Vince]

Will the shadow Minister give way on that point?

[Gareth Bacon]

I will not. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I know he cares passionately about this issue, but we are running out of time. I need to leave time for the Minister to respond and for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to conclude.

The figure of 126,040 households is a 15.7% increase on 2023. The Government need to rethink this policy for the sake of local government and those who have a statutory requirement to help. It is not just local authorities that are under additional pressure. Homeless Link found that thanks to the Chancellor’s national insurance hike, the 2024 autumn Budget removed between £50 million and £60 million of vital funding from smaller organisations that provide homelessness services. It is sad that the Government’s announcements on homelessness funding, as welcome as they are, to some extent merely fill the gaps that the Treasury created.

It is also important that the Government work to make housing more affordable, including with proper funding for social and affordable homes. Unfortunately, the Government are not making the progress that they promised. On funding for affordable housing, despite the Chancellor’s boast when announcing the package at the previous spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted:

“Upon closer inspection the promise of £39bn over 10 years is less generous than on first appearance…The small print suggests spending of about £3bn a year over the next three years, which is not a million miles away from what is currently spent on the AHP”—

affordable homes programme—

“This is why enormous-sounding numbers should always merit further scrutiny”.

The Government are also failing on making social and affordable homes available. Figures show that, with the lowest number of additional homes for nearly a decade, the Government are on track to fall well short of the target of 1.5 million additional homes in this Parliament, possibly not even reaching 1 million. That is considerably worse than the 2.5 million new homes delivered by the previous Government, including 1 million in the previous Parliament, of which 750,000 were affordable homes. That was despite having to grapple with the pandemic for the better part of two years.

In conclusion, it is clear that Ministers must work more quickly and effectively to provide local authorities and charities with the strategy and direction they need. It is vital to move at a greater pace to ease the temporary accommodation crisis, get more social and affordable homes built in the most affected areas, and finally publish the homelessness strategy first promised in July 2024 but repeatedly delayed to the detriment of those relying on it to work. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

10:47

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his continued work on homelessness. He is respected across the House, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), said, and we are all grateful for his work.

I thank the 14 hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I again agree with the shadow Minister that that number, along with the 17 hon. Members who spoke in the last such debate, sends a message to people outside this place that tackling homelessness is a priority for Members on both sides of the House of Commons. I will encourage all officials in the Department to read this debate to understand where MPs are coming from and the priority that this subject represents for them. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 of the hon. Member for Harrow East is a priority for me, and I want to work with him to implement it. I hear what he said about its delay and take that as an instruction to work harder to get it done.

More broadly, I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. As has been said, although homelessness is a problem of not having enough houses, it is not just a housing problem; it is a profound injustice that devastates lives. Everyone has a right to a roof over their head. Homelessness is a visible reminder that our society falls short in the duties that we owe to one another—something that the Labour Government are determined to change.

Some hon. Members mentioned the homelessness strategy, about which I can only say, “Watch this space.” I am determined to get on and publish it before Christmas, and I am really keen to work cross-party with hon. Members to make it work. We had an excellent parliamentary engagement session last week, which was less formal than this debate, and I think it works really well to have a combination of informal opportunities and debates such as this for hon. Members to talk through what they want to see in the strategy.

As we move towards the delivery phase of the homelessness strategy, it will be right for us to continue holding those parliamentary engagement sessions on a range of issues to make sure that hon. Members can feed into them. Last week, we talked through the preventive nature of the strategy from the point of view of housing and affordability, and how we can enable the support that the most vulnerable people need. A couple of hon. Members also made important points about people with complex needs.

You will forgive me, Mr Vickers, if I briefly mention the Budget. I have no doubt that, as with any Budget, not every hon. Member got all their heart’s desires, but ending the two-child limit was one of mine. I have met many kids in temporary accommodation, or otherwise living in poverty, who will benefit. I think of those children every day when I walk into the Department, and what we can collectively do to give them their futures back.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said, we announced in the Budget that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will lead a review, involving me and other Ministers, of value for money in homelessness services. It will include looking at ways to improve the supply of good value for money and good quality temporary accommodation and supported housing, such as through greater co-ordination in planning and procurement in different parts of the state.

A couple of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—who I commend for his work as my predecessor as Minister for Local Government, setting in train a really important set of reforms that will help in this area—mentioned the absolutely dire state of temporary accommodation, both for the kids in it and for the taxpayer, and the fact that we are not getting value for money at the moment. I encourage all Members to engage with that value for money review; we want to see some of the worst cases so that we can provide an evidence base.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister is making some powerful points in recognition of the challenges that we face. On the Budget, it will always be difficult to balance the books and maintain the status quo. Does she accept that the mammoth task of addressing homelessness can be achieved only with the substantial amount of investment that can come through wealth taxes—with wealthy people paying more for the vulnerable in society?

[Alison McGovern]

I think the record will show that the Government have taken action to bring in more tax from people who owe it—from those at the top of society—and that, because we have done so, we have been able to get rid of the two-child limit and commit £39 billion to build more social and affordable housing. That investment will make a difference in tackling the social injustice of homelessness.

As a few hon. Members mentioned, we are taking action now, even before we have published the strategy. This year, we have invested more than £1 billion— the largest annual investment to date—to enable local authorities to invest in prevention, provide tailored support and reduce the reliance on costly short-term solutions.

Several hon. Members also mentioned the tension that exists between ringfencing funding and allowing local authorities the flexibility to lead solutions that work for their place. Following the work of my predecessor, I am very glad that we have been able to provide local authorities with a three-year funding settlement and reconnect council funding with deprivation. The twin effects of those policies will help in that area.

We as Members of Parliament have to recognise, however, that there is a tension between curtailing local authorities’ freedom through things like ringfencing, which might target resources in the right place, and enabling them to tailor support to their local area. We will square that circle through the local government outcomes framework that we will publish shortly with the full settlement. We will show how we will have visibility and transparency over outcomes so that we can understand exactly where the problems are and take steps to tackle them. I look forward to engaging with all hon. Members on that framework.

We know that our investment in councils on homelessness is making a difference. The latest annual figures show early signs of progress, with 11% fewer households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is a small bit of progress, but I agree with all hon. Members who have expressed real concern about where we are at the moment; we still have a long way to go.

Far too many people are experiencing homelessness and we have to provide the homes that they need, as I have said. Alongside increasing supply, as I mentioned, we need to reform the private rented sector. Section 21 no-fault evictions are a leading cause of homelessness, forcing thousands of families into crisis every year, but we have abolished them through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. The best way to prevent homelessness is to stop it before it starts, and that is what the Renters’ Rights Act will do. We have also strengthened protections for the social housing stock by reforming the right to buy.

Many hon. Members mentioned supported housing, which is crucial. I say to the hon. Member for Harrow East that I am working very hard on the implementation of his Act. It is vital that we drive out rogue landlords. As I mentioned, I will welcome the engagement of hon. Members on our value for money review, because we know that we desperately need more resources in this area and some of the resources that are there at the moment are not being spent in the way that we as Members of Parliament would wish. We have a collective duty to resolve that situation in the strategy’s implementation phase.

I will conclude and allow the hon. Member for Harrow East to say a few words. In the end, we want to see lasting change, whether through social homes being built or our goal to improve disposable incomes so that people are less likely to be unable to fulfil their tenancy. Those are the steps that we can take to end homelessness for good and make sure, for anybody experiencing homelessness, that it is a brief period and never repeated. We need the cross-party collaboration that we have demonstrated again here today, and a whole-system approach. On hospital discharge, on prisons, on victims of domestic abuse and on veterans, I have engaged with Ministers in those areas and I will continue to do so. We have an interministerial group meeting coming up before we publish the strategy, and I can report that all those other Departments are engaging enthusiastically on the strategy.

We need to prevent homelessness. That will mean less cost for the state and, crucially, much better outcomes for families and individuals who desperately need better support. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today. It has been inspiring, again, to understand how important this issue is. Most of all, I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for securing the debate. I have absolutely no doubt that when it comes to debates in Westminster Hall on this subject, this ain’t going to be the last.

10:58

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the 13 Back-Bench Members who contributed to the debate. It is clear that we have a serious challenge on our hands. In relation to the long-promised strategy, it is only a few days till we break up for the Christmas recess and the strategy is supposed to be released before Christmas, so we look forward to it coming very soon. During the debate, we have exposed the fact that it is not just funding that is required. The reality is that we need a wholesale strategy to prevent homelessness in the first place and then to make sure that local authorities and other bodies are carrying out their duties properly.

The Minister rightly referred to my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act. The reality is that the regulations were prepared before the general election, consulted on when new Ministers took office and should now be enforced. Local authorities are going off and doing their own thing when we should have a clear strategy for how we do this. There are measures in the Act that the Minister could introduce today, without having to rely on the consultation that is taking place. I urge her to take that opportunity so that we can make sure that we prevent homelessness in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the adequacy of funding to support homeless people.

Pandemics: Support for People with Autism

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

11:01

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for people with autism during pandemic-type events.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to secure this debate, and to discuss a matter of deep importance for one of my Ipswich constituents, Ivan Ambrose, as well as thousands of people across our country who were failed during the pandemic. It is because of Ivan and his tireless campaigning that we are here today. He has given me permission to share his story. It is deeply personal to him, but tragically, it will be recognised and shared by many people.

Ivan is a 41-year-old man who lives in Ipswich and has been housebound for the past four years. He has autism and severe mental health problems. Prior to the pandemic, Ivan had suffered multiple breakdowns, the most recent of which resulted in him being hospitalised for three weeks. However, he had gradually started to reach a more stable place. It had taken a long time, but he had begun to feel somewhat better.

Ivan was on the road to recovery, but then the pandemic hit. Constantly changing rules left him confused and distressed. He was made extremely anxious by rules that were revised on a daily, and sometimes even hourly, basis. The mass bombardment of information in completely unsuitable formats left him overwhelmed and debilitated. His parents could not have the TV on around him, as he was unable to deal with the relentless stream of information about the pandemic, and none of that information was delivered in an autism-friendly way. No consideration was given to making information easier for autistic people to process and understand, and there was no guidance to help autistic people understand why the rules kept changing. Accessibility was simply not a concern.

After the second lockdown, as pubs and restaurants reopened, no thought was given to housebound autistic people such as Ivan. While the relaxation of rules came as a relief to many of us as we enjoyed a greater sense of freedom, Ivan was not allowed to invite anyone home—not even his favourite aunt. Those years were incredibly difficult for many people.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving a passionate speech. I also thank Ivan for sharing his experiences with the House; they are hugely important. I declare an interest as a trustee of the charity Razed Roof, which provided online sessions during lockdown to support people with autism and other learning difficulties. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes charities giving that support, but does he agree that we cannot rely on charities, and that there needs to be state support for people with autism?

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work in this area and he is absolutely right. I pay huge tribute to all the people in our charity sector, and the many organisations that played such a crucial role in supporting people during the pandemic. However, this was a failure of the Government at the time, and we should not just let charities pick up the pieces from that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I always try to be helpful by mentioning some of the things we have done in Northern Ireland, and the Minister may find it helpful to know that many universities, including Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, offer work-based support for students with autism to help them navigate placements and internships in a way that assists them in preparing for future employment. It is really important that there is face-to-face activity. Does the hon. Member agree that, should we experience another pandemic-like event, there must be more focus on ensuring that support is still available and that the employment opportunities and health of people with autism are not hindered because they cannot access the support they need? Queen’s University and Ulster University did that, and they did it well.

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come to some of that in a moment. I pay huge tribute to those who were working in Northern Ireland at the time. The pandemic was worldwide and the response hit all parts of our communities.

The years of the pandemic were very difficult for many people, but for people like Ivan they were deeply and profoundly traumatic. Ivan still bears the scars of that time. He lives with post-traumatic stress disorder and continues to experience flashbacks. He has not left the house at all in four years, and to this day the TV stays off. I will be really blunt: Ivan and those like him were betrayed by the previous Conservative Government. They utterly failed him, along with so many other autistic and neurodivergent people.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is speaking so eloquently about his constituent Ivan. Does he agree that children with autism were failed by school closures during lockdown? That was particularly difficult for children who rely on structure and routine. Research from Queen’s University Belfast shows that that measure harmed children’s rights to play, rest and leisure, with autistic young people reporting fear, uncertainty and isolation. Does he agree that any future response should avoid school closures?

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that had a huge impact on many autistic and vulnerable children, not least because of the lack of clear and consistent communication that I am outlining. I will not go into the issue of school closures—the Minister may touch on that in a moment—but of course they had a profound impact on all children, and we are seeing the effects of it.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member and his marvellous constituent Ivan, who he is speaking about so passionately and affectionately. Does he agree that support for autistic children and their families must be treated as a priority during and in the aftermath of pandemics and other crisis events of that sort? In my constituency, the parent of a three-year-old child who is showing clear signs of autism has been waiting for 18 months for a community paediatric assessment and just as long for dietetic support for suspected avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. That delay is already affecting his development and nutrition at a critical stage. Does the hon. Member agree that neurodevelopmental and early years services must be properly resourced and protected, and not sidelined, so that such children are not left without support when they need it the most?

[Jack Abbott]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman.

In February 2021, Ivan’s parents, Jayne and Gary, wrote to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, describing how their son was struggling and pleading with him for help. Ivan sent me a copy of the letter a few months ago, and it is truly heartbreaking; you can hear Jayne and Gary’s desperation, helplessness and heartbreak as they watched their son in immense pain, powerless to help. They did finally receive a response, but it was a full 13 months later. It is not lost on me that illegal parties were likely taking place in No. 10 at the very time the Ambroses’ letter arrived.

I have met Ivan several times and I think he is a hugely inspirational person. He has turned his trauma and suffering into incredible determination, and he has spent the last four years campaigning and fighting to make sure that no one has to go through what he did. He launched an online petition in 2022 calling for autistic people’s needs to be met in a future pandemic response. Although he failed to get the 10,000 signatures for a Government response, he persisted none the less. He has featured across our local media, trying to raise awareness, and over the last few years his campaign has had a real impact. Recently, he was asked to submit evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Autism Act 2009 and his evidence features in the Committee’s report. I know he is very proud of that, as he absolutely should be.

We hope and pray that pandemic-type events never occur again, but hope and prayers alone are not a responsible strategy. If this sort of tragedy should occur again, we need to make sure that autistic people, neurodivergent people and all vulnerable people are properly considered and supported.

The UK covid-19 inquiry recently published its module 2 report of its investigation into the previous Government’s response to the pandemic. The verdict was clear: that Government did not adequately consider the needs of disabled people. Neither the Minister with responsibility for disabled people nor the disability unit played a direct role in the Government’s initial strategy from January to March 2020. Neither had any part in the discussions about whether to implement lockdown, or how the effects of that decision might be mitigated.

It was not until 21 May 2020, two whole months after the country went into lockdown, that the position of disabled people was even considered at interministerial level. Disabled people were an afterthought; their needs and how the Government response to the pandemic might affect them were not considered. Ivan and thousands of other autistic and neurodivergent people across the country bear the consequences of that negligence today.

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

I thank the hon. Member for the powerful and persuasive argument he is making in relation to his constituent, Ivan. Neuro- divergent children who went through the trauma of the pandemic are finding it very difficult to establish themselves in schools. It is already the case in Birmingham, certainly in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, that schools are underfunded when it comes to addressing some of these challenges. Would he ask the Government to provide additional funding for schools that now have these classic symptoms, which are ever-growing?

[Jack Abbott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We also saw severe cuts to early intervention support during the pandemic in my home area of Ipswich and Suffolk. At the height of the pandemic, children’s centres were closed and the number of visits by health visitors was slashed. I absolutely echo his call for more funding, which is why I am really pleased that the Government provided £1 billion in extra funding for special educational needs and disability in comparison with the previous year. In Suffolk, £10 million of that will be spent on specialist places. I absolutely echo and support what the hon. Gentleman said.

Data reporting on disabled people during the pandemic was also woefully inadequate. In October 2020, it was noted that data on disability across the Government was “fragmented” and did

“not allow comparisons to be made across Departments.”

The information mainly came from anecdotal reports or charity sector surveys.

Departments were tasked with improving the collection of data on disabled people. Needless to say, however, nothing much improved and no preparations were made for communicating properly with disabled people in appropriate formats. For example, for a significant period, there was no British Sign Language interpreter on Government broadcasts. The list of clinically extremely vulnerable groups who received online deliveries in the early stages of the pandemic was entirely medicalised, based on an outdated medical model of disability. Thousands of disabled people with mental distress, mobility challenges, energy limitations, sensory impairments and learning disabilities were not placed on that list for online deliveries, even though many of them could not visit supermarkets or other important outlets in person.

According to the chief executive of Disability UK, that was

“one stark example of the abandonment of the Social Model of Disability.”

That model, which was developed by disabled people, says that people are disabled by barriers in society, rather than by their impairment or condition. It is widely accepted and has been the recommended model for all Government Departments for several years.

The failures that we have heard about in the first two inquiry reports are utterly shameful. Between June and July 2020, the National Autistic Society ran an online survey looking at autistic people’s experience of coronavirus and the lockdown. Autistic people were seven times more likely to be lonely and six times more likely to have low life satisfaction; nine in 10 autistic people worried about their mental health during lockdown; and one in five family members had to reduce work because of caring responsibilities. That is an appalling legacy. It cannot happen again, and our Government must ensure that it does not.

I know that the Government are currently looking at the UK’s pandemic preparedness and recently concluded Exercise Pegasus, a pandemic simulation exercise assessing our ability to respond to another pandemic. One of the core objectives of the exercise was to explore the impact of inequalities and consideration of them during pandemic decision making. I look forward to seeing the results of that work.

As the Government prepare the pandemic response plan, I am very glad that the impact on vulnerable people, including autistic people, and preventing such events from happening again are front and centre in that work; I look forward to the Minister outlining in more detail what steps the Government are taking to ensure that. What happened to Ivan is a tragedy and a gross injustice. He is still suffering today and might suffer for many years into the future. That cannot be undone, and the damage inflicted on him cannot be taken back—but, as we prepare for future pandemics, we must make sure we do better.

I finish by thanking Ivan and his parents Jayne and Gary for their tireless work in raising awareness and campaigning so relentlessly and selflessly. Ivan’s resilience and commitment to fighting so that no one goes through the torment that he did and still suffers from is commendable. We should all be inspired by him. I will be frank, however: warm words of inspiration and thanks are simply not enough. We need to see lasting and permanent change, so that what Ivan went through can never happen again.

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for raising this important topic. Having known him for the last 14 months, I know how passionately he feels about the national health service in his area, particularly the mental health service provision in his area. His constituents can be rightly proud of his doughty advocacy on their behalf. My hon. Friend spoke about his constituent’s campaign to improve support for autistic people following his very difficult experiences during the covid-19 pandemic. I also place on the record my commendation of Ivan for his tireless work to ensure that autistic people will receive the right form of support.

We have heard today of the challenges that autistic people faced during the pandemic. It is important that we learn from those experiences and ensure we do better in future. In 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care commissioned research into the impact of the pandemic on autistic people and their families. The report, published in May ’21, made several key recommendations that chime with the issues my hon. Friend so eloquently raised today. It included findings about access to education for autistic children during lockdown; lack of respite and support for family members and carers; the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of autistic people and the challenges they face accessing healthcare in the round; and, as highlighted in this debate, the need for clear communication and transparency of decision making to help autistic people to follow advice and guidance appropriately.

I want to provide reassurance that the Government remain committed to learning the lessons from the pandemic, to help us to prepare better in future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich alluded to, the Government have acknowledged the disproportionate impact that the pandemic had on vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom. Module 1 of the UK covid-19 inquiry was published in July last year and focused on the UK’s resilience and preparedness for the pandemic. The Government’s response, published in January this year, sets out the changes we have made to ensure that we reduce the potential unequal impacts of events on particular groups or individuals in any future pandemics. However, as my hon. Friend also highlighted, we recognise that there is a lot of further work to do to ensure that the impact of inequalities and vulnerabilities in pandemic decision making is fully anticipated and planned for.

The inquiry recently published module 2 of its report, focusing on UK decision making and political governance. The report highlights that considerable numbers of people suffered from the social, economic and cultural consequences of steps taken to combat the pandemic, such as lockdown, including the impacts of social isolation, loneliness and declining mental health, and of course the chopping and changing of advice—which was sometimes necessary, but perhaps, on reflection, sometimes unnecessary. Module 10 of the inquiry is focusing on the impact of the pandemic on society in more detail and will carefully consider the findings in due course.

It is clearly critical that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic, and that is rightly a top priority for the Government. The Department’s new strategic approach to pandemic preparedness continues to recognise the disproportionate and unintended impacts that pandemics can have on vulnerable people and groups. The Department is therefore committed to publishing a new pandemic preparedness strategy, which will be published next year and will show how the unequal impacts of pandemics on social health and healthcare are considered in all areas of preparedness and response.

As my hon. Friend also alluded to, we have recently concluded participation in Exercise Pegasus, the largest ever simulation of a pandemic in UK history. Exercise Pegasus gives us an opportunity to examine our preparedness, capabilities and response arrangements, and we will continue to learn as we plan for phase 4 of the exercise in 2026. The Government have committed to communicating the findings and lessons, and a post-exercise report will be delivered in due course.

I recognise the concerns raised about accessible communications during the pandemic, and hear loudly my hon. Friend’s reflections. The UK Health Security Agency was established in 2021 and is responsible for preventing, preparing and responding to infectious diseases and other environmental hazards. The UKHSA collaborates closely with the voluntary and community sector, including organisations working with and representing autistic people. That close collaboration has allowed it to gain rapid feedback from those organisations regarding the efficacy of communication and guidance materials so that they can be adapted as required, in real time, to communicate with all members of our society and not just some.

More broadly, the Government recognise the importance of accessible communications and have published guidance on that for all Government Departments. Within health and social care, all NHS organisations and publicly funded social care providers are expected to meet the accessible information standard, which details the approach to supporting the information and communication needs of people with disability, impairment or sensory loss. NHS England published a revised standard in June this year to ensure that the communication needs of people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss are met within health and care provision. We are also taking steps in the health and care system to improve the accessibility of services for autistic people more broadly. For example, there is work underway in NHS England to make sure that staff in health settings know that they need to make reasonable adjustments for people. That includes the introduction of a reasonable adjustment digital flag, which enables the recording of key information about a citizen or a patient, including that a person is autistic, and the reasonable adjustment needs to ensure support can be tailored appropriately.

[Chris Vince]

Would that digital flag also flag up something like someone being a young carer or having caring responsibilities?

[Dr Ahmed]

I will have to go back and check that particular sub-group of flagging and get back to my hon. Friend, but I think the point he makes is that, wherever possible, we should be identifying those groups that have specific communication needs, by virtue of either their own personal health or social needs, or the needs of those they are looking after. He makes a very valid point and I will be delighted to write to him with a more detailed response than I can give at the moment.

More broadly, I have heard concerns about support for autistic people. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that we are committed to supporting autistic people, who should have the right support in place, tailored to their individual needs. Our 10-year health plan sets out an ambitious reform agenda to transform the NHS and rightly make it fit for the future. That future must at its core include early intervention and support for autistic people and those with specific needs.

We are working with the Department for Education on reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, ensuring that joined-up support is available across education and health, including for autistic children and young people. We are also taking steps to improve access to adult social care services for those who need them. To build consensus on plans for a national care service, Baroness Casey is chairing an independent commission to shape the medium and long-term landscape reforms needed, and we have been putting the core foundations in place to facilitate that. That includes strengthening joined-up care between health and social care, so that people experience more integrated, person-centred care, including through the development of neighbourhood health services.

I have also heard about the impact of the pandemic on autistic people’s mental health and wellbeing. We know that autistic people are, sadly, disproportionately impacted by mental ill health and face challenges in accessing services in relation to their mental health. We are taking steps to address that, including raising awareness and understanding of autism within health and social care systems. We have been rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism to support Care Quality Commission-registered providers to meet their statutory requirements and ensure that their staff receive specific training on learning disability and autism. NHS England has been rolling out additional training services across its mental health services, and has published guidance for mental health services on meeting the needs of autistic adults and guidance on adaptations of NHS talking therapies specifically designed for autistic people.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the House of Lords special inquiry Committee on the Autism Act 2009 published its report and recommendations for Government on 23 November. I understand that his constituent Ivan contributed to the inquiry, and I personally thank him and others for sharing their valuable insights and experiences, despite all the trauma that they have been through. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations on the next autism strategy and support for autistic people, and we will respond formally in due course.

I end by reiterating my thanks to my hon. Friend and his constituent Ivan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for their contributions.

Whether through Exercise Pegasus, looking at how we can better co-create guidance with vulnerable groups, using better guidance tailored for specific communities, using digital flags on health records, or indeed better mandatory training, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich this assurance: no longer will disabled people or people with specific or additional needs be treated as an afterthought. They will be at the forefront of our minds when planning future pandemic training and preparedness—and when executing that preparedness, should we be so unfortunate as to suffer another pandemic. He has my assurance, and I am once again grateful to him for securing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:26

Sitting suspended.

Gambling: Regulatory Reform

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

14:30

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are here to talk about gambling regulation and to discuss the scale of the problem. There is clear evidence that current regulation of the gambling industry is not adequate to protect people from harm, including children and young people. Figures published by the Gambling Commission this October showed that 1.4 million people in Britain have a gambling problem. That number is not spread equally: young men aged 25 to 34 are most affected, with 5.5% experiencing at least moderate-risk gambling, and rates are much higher in more deprived communities, with men in the most deprived areas twice as likely as those in more well-off areas to be moderate-risk gamblers.

Evidence suggests that while many people gamble a bit, the vast majority of profits derived by gambling firms come from a small number of gamblers. The House of Lords Gambling Industry Committee found that 60% of the industry’s profits come from just 5% of customers, who are either problem gamblers or at risk. Recent Gambling Commission figures also show that the harms caused by gambling are increasingly being experienced by children, with the proportion of young people being exposed to significant harms more than doubling between 2023 and 2024. Moreover, the harms caused by gambling are not isolated to the individuals who take part; when it reaches a harmful level, it can have devastating impacts for families and right across communities, in every constituency.

Gambling is linked to addiction, debt and other serious harms, and can negatively impact mental and physical health, relationships, finances, employment and education, but it is comparatively less regulated than other harmful industries and not taxed to directly reflect the harms it causes. In my home patch of Witney, Oxfordshire county council identified gambling addiction as a key risk factor in its recently updated suicide prevention strategy. Research by Gambling with Lives, a charity established in 2018 by families bereaved by gambling suicides, shows that, shockingly, there are hundreds of gambling-related suicides each year, an average of around one a day.

The impact on the public purse is also significant. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that a person experiencing problem gambling leads to an additional £3,700 spend per year in higher welfare payments, healthcare and criminal justice costs, and the cost of homelessness. A research report from the University of Oxford by Dr Naomi Muggleton showed that as many as one in four gamblers are harmed.

The industry continues to develop rapidly, and regulation must keep pace and remain fit for purpose. The Lancet public health commission on gambling found in 2024:

“Digitalisation has transformed the production and operation of commercial gambling… The commercial gambling industry has also developed strong partnerships in media and social media. Sponsoring and partnering with professional sports organisations provides gambling operators with marketing opportunities with huge new audiences.”

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

In the light of that, some two years ago it was recommended very clearly that a gambling ombudsman should be set up. So far, across two Governments, nothing has happened on that. That is needed to check that all these elements are being dealt with at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that that should be one of the first acts that the Government should get on with right now?

[Charlie Maynard]

I fully agree and will cover that shortly.

The Lancet commission concluded that

“gambling poses a threat to public health, the control of which requires a substantial expansion and tightening of gambling industry regulation”.

So what should we do? First, we should limit the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship, especially the extent to which children and young people are exposed to it. The industry spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and would not be putting that money in without a high degree of certainty that it will be more than paid back in profits. Some 80% of that is spent online, which is why children so often come across gambling and gambling companies.

Research undertaken by the Gambling Commission found that 34% of British bettors admitted to being influenced by advertising, and 16% stated that ads caused them to increase their gambling. Research published this year found that 96% of people aged 11 to 24 had seen gambling marketing messages in the month before the study, and were more likely to bet as a result. On Twitter—or X—alone, there are more than a million gambling ads in the UK each year. Football matches are saturated by gambling ads; there were thousands of gambling messages during the opening weekend of the English premier league alone, across various channels.

Many of our neighbours have taken action. In 2018, Italy banned all online advertising of gambling products. Spain added strong restrictions in 2020. Germany did the same in 2021, as did the Netherlands and Belgium in 2023. Finland and Sweden are set to implement restrictions in 2027. By contrast, here in the UK, the 2023 White Paper on reforming gambling for the digital age acknowledged the harm caused by marketing but opted to continue with a mostly self-regulatory approach. I think such an approach means a huge amount of harm will continue, so I urge the Minister to look again at that, given the damage the sector does and the action already taken by others to mitigate it in their countries. There is strong public support for greater restrictions, too, with polling showing that 51% of people think all gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship should be banned, and 78% think that nobody under the age of 18 should be exposed to it.

Secondly, underpinning all this, we need a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real power, exactly as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated. That was recommended in the 2023 gambling White Paper and was intended to be established and operational within 12 months, and yet no progress has been made. I also understand that the Government have asked the gambling industry, of all people, to come up with ideas on how the ombudsman should be run—a case of poacher turned gamekeeper if ever there was one. If that is the case, are the Government really serious about setting up an ombudsman with effective powers that it actually uses? Will the Minister please clarify what steps are being taken to achieve that?

Thirdly, another area where our regulation has a disconnect is licensing frameworks. Pubs are licensed by local authorities. Licensing for vape shops, requiring retailers to obtain a personal licence to sell the products and a premises licence for their storage and sale, is currently under consideration in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Given that, why do local authorities not have the powers they need to prevent new gambling premises from opening? We should review and implement the relevant commitments in the 2023 gambling White Paper, which seeks to strengthen local authority discretion and better reflect community harm. I would welcome an update from the Minister on plans to review and progress the recommendations in the White Paper.

Finally, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase gaming duty in last week’s Budget—that was an important step. I now encourage the Government to consider directing some of the revenue raised from that towards taking steps better to regulate the industry and reduce the personal and social harms it contributes to in the long term.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I suggest eight minutes to start? I call Gareth Snell.

14:39

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not need that long, Sir Desmond, don’t worry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing the debate. After the recent Budget, it is a timely moment to discuss how we regulate the gambling sector in this country, and what that means both for taxation as a way of regulating and for regulation itself.

I will be up front: I come to this debate from a slightly different position. The single largest employer in my constituency is bet365, which employs 5,500 people in some of the high-value jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, and there will be job-loss implications as a result of the Budget. I am not here to plead the case of bet365; the company will do that itself. I also have no interest to declare, because I have never taken any hospitality or financial support from it. However, it is important to put it on the record that there are always consequences to the way that we regulate companies, and real people will lose their jobs as a result of the decisions that this House will presumably take later this evening.

As a result of that constituency interest, I have had to do some rapid learning in this area. I have genuinely had to consider and understand how we do regulation in a way that is good. I am a firm believer that regulation should genuinely be a force for making things better. In this country, we often pull the regulation lever when we see something bad, because we think that regulating can solve it. Sometimes that regulation works; sometimes it does not.

Not all 62 recommendations in the White Paper have been implemented. I think that everyone would agree that there are things that have been identified and worked on with the sector that need to be implemented, and implemented more quickly, so that the full package of actions that was determined as being necessary for better regulation of the sector is implemented. There is a cost to the sector from that, and a cost that often gets passed on to consumers.

The other issue, which I will touch on later, is how we do regulation in a way that does not drive people into the unregulated sector. I think we would all accept that one of the huge challenges we face, not just in gambling but in a whole host of other areas, is that access to the unregulated sector is becoming easier. I would wager that every single one of us has a smartphone in our pocket and, within a couple of clicks, can be in a highly unregulated gambling environment that does not subscribe to any of the normal social protections that have been put in place for the big regulated industries.

Quite often, consumers do not know whether they are in a regulated sector or an unregulated sector. Those in the unregulated sector have larger cash-outs and better odds, because they are not restricted in how they conduct their operations and frequently they are headquartered far away, in much more favourable tax regimes, so none of the tax they pay comes to the UK at all. However, consumers will not know that. They will not really know from looking at a website on their phone whether or not they are in a regulated sector.

We must change that. We have to find a way of making sure that if someone in this country is choosing, as 22 million people do each year, to access to gaming or gambling, they know that they are doing it somewhere where they will get protection and security, and that the lockouts are there so that, if they need to access help, they can get it. At the moment, too many people do not. Too many people in this country are able to access unregulated gambling services that bleed them dry and take them for everything they have got, leading to the social harms that the hon. Member for Witney rightly referred to.

Regardless of where we sit in this debate—we might be avid gamblers who enjoy doing so regularly; as it happens, I do not gamble myself, other than perhaps on the Grand National once a year, because I did it with my grandad 20 years ago and it is a fond memory—we all want to make gambling safer and to ensure that it operates within a system that is regulated, secure and provides the help and support that people want. That is where I am trying to come from with my comments today.

We all have constituents who enjoy gambling, but we all have constituents for whom gambling is a problem, and fundamentally we must take action to support them. I was heartened to see the written ministerial statement that the Minister recirculated today about the amount raised through the statutory gambling levy. There are genuine questions that we need to answer about who will get that money in order to provide support services. I think that £120 million has been raised since April, yet, other than a couple of large organisations, there is not really clarity about who will receive that funding. That needs to be sorted out very quickly, because there are people who need that help and support who are not getting it.

There is also work that we need to do to ensure that some of the provisions in the review that took place previously are properly implemented. I welcome the fact that we have things such as the whistle-to-whistle ad ban, so that there is no advertising of gambling while sports matches are happening. Stoke City, who are sponsored by bet365, are currently fourth in the championship. They might get promoted to the premier league, at which point they would have to think about their sponsorship arrangements, because they would not be able to have their shirts sponsored by a gambling company; that is something the sector has signed up to. I really hope that Stoke get promoted—it has been a long time since we were in the premier league—but if they have to make that change, there will be a cost to both the football club and the company in my constituency.

More work could probably be done around the seventh industry code for socially responsible advertising. The mandate is for someone to be over 25, unless there is the targeting technology to do it specifically to over-18s, but I freely accept that there is leakage in that. How we tighten that to ensure that under-18s are not exposed to gambling adverts, as part of the code that the sector has signed up to, is important. I am the father of a 15-year-old who has access to myriad social media apps. There are many I do not like but I have lost the battle. I am confident that she is able to make some decisions for herself, but I know that there will be other young people who will be more attracted to that.

We need to think about what the Gambling Commission is able to do. The Office for Budget Responsibility report, on the back of the tax changes this week, says it expects to see some leakage into the black market. As a result, the Treasury must allocate £26 million to the Gambling Commission to try to resolve that possible movement—a £500 million reduction in yield due to that leakage. We must think about that. If the social and behavioural change caused by regulation and taxation pushes more people into the black market, we must be cognisant of that consequence of our actions and think how to prevent it.

We also need to think about how to ensure that more people do not try to access riskier, higher-value games—I am thinking about games rather than sports betting in that instance, because the 40% rate of the remote gaming duty will mean that some companies will remove products from the market and shrink their offer, and that gap will be filled by others who do not take it so seriously. We have to think about the social consequences of that.

I did say I would not take eight minutes; I have barely 30 more seconds. It is almost certain that next week we will put through the tax changes announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, so this debate is timely in allowing us to explore those issues. We now need a regular reporting mechanism, which I hope the Minister will consider. Significant parts of the White Paper have still not been implemented; those parts that have been implemented have had only 18 months to bed in, and now we have a new tax regime, which means that people will move towards the black market.

We must measure and deal with that, to combat abuse by nefarious gaming organisations that work outside the regulated market and inflict harm. We collectively cannot allow that to happen. We need to be clear that the more we regulate and tax an industry that wants to be part of the solution, the easier we potentially make that move towards an unregulated market.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Lee Dillon. It seems he is not here, so I call Cameron Thomas.

14:47

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), I thank you, Sir Desmond. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this important debate.

As a teenaged boy, every morning on my way to school I would stop off at the home of my friend M and we would walk the last few hundred metres to school together. We shared a number of classes, and every lunch time we would abscond back to his house to play video games. As we became adults, we enjoyed betting on weekend football accumulators as we watched the live scores come in, at the small cost of a few pounds.

As I came to spend fewer weekends with our friendship group, and gradually lost interest in betting, M continued to bet more consistently and with ever greater stakes. The rise in online gambling firms was followed by increasingly invasive advertising campaigns, not only on the shirts of the footballers he watched or on the hoardings of premier league football stadiums, but increasingly in his social media feeds. Everywhere M looked, there was a betting company chipping away at his judgment, enticing him to put money down.

Adverts showed groups of young men cheering at TV screens in packed bars. They did not show dark bedrooms dimly illuminated by computer monitors or mobile phones. They did not show vulnerable young men in despair, having lost a pay packet on the first weekend of the month. M was well into his 20s by the time he realised he was a problem gambler. By the time he had reached his 30s, family members were protecting his wages from his addiction. By the time he was 40, he had twice lost deposits he had been saving to buy a home.

There is a sensible and nuanced course of action to be charted here. People such as my friend M need action, but establishments such as Cheltenham Racecourse in my constituency of Tewkesbury must not be conflated with online betting companies. Cheltenham Racecourse’s 250,000 annual visitors generate £274 million for the Gloucestershire economy, but the Jockey Club, which operates the racecourse in my Tewkesbury constituency, generates a tiny fraction of the huge profits enjoyed by large online gambling companies.

Taxation that fails to discriminate between such vastly different operations risks undermining the viability of horseracing, one of Britain’s oldest and most recognisable national sports, which contributes more than £3 billion annually to the British economy. I welcome the Government’s implementation of a Liberal Democrat policy in its increase to the remote gaming duty, though that money should be ringfenced to treat victims of gambling-related harms.

The most crucial action that must be taken, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said, is to restrict betting advertisement, particularly of the type that bombards sports viewers and seeks to blur the lines between sports and betting. Effective affordability checks could better protect those vulnerable to gambling addiction. I also note the speech by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who said that a betting ombudsman is long overdue.

The Government should tackle gambling harms, but they must distinguish between those operations that prey on the vulnerable—at all hours, across all platforms—and those that genuinely contribute to our culture and economy.

14:51

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this timely debate. It is interesting to hear different Members from across the House taking a stand on this issue. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has bet365 in his constituency; he spoke about his need to make sure his residents have good jobs, but also about how to balance those harms. It is interesting to hear how we can move forward with that.

I welcome the Government’s Budget announcements increasing remote gaming duty and general betting duty as a way to tackle some of our more harmful forms of gambling, particularly in online gaming. That is something that the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many Members across this House have championed—it is a cross-party issue.

This move from the Chancellor goes some way towards addressing the many billions of pounds that gambling harm costs the public purse. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities estimates that the public health costs of gambling in England alone are between £1 billion and £1.77 billion, but that figure captures only a subset of costs: it relies on self-reporting and the methodology does not include costs including secondary mental health services, alcohol and drug use, lost tax from employment and the cost of lives lost to gambling suicide.

Furthermore, the cost of gambling goes far beyond the individual themselves. For every person experiencing problem gambling, it is estimated that up to six others are affected—their families, children, employers and community members.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

On the point about the effects going beyond the person experiencing problem gambling, I was contacted by my constituent Chloe Long, who tragically and heartbreakingly lost her brother to gambling-related suicide last year. In his case, the challenge was not the regulated gambling industry, as we have been discussing; he was doing all the right things in terms of self-excluding and signing up to GamStop, but was still able to access the black market sites. We have to think more creatively about how we can solve that problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be much more awareness out there of just how severe the risks of gambling addiction can be and of the devastating effect it can have, not just on the people we lose through it, but on their families, children and friends for decades to come?

[Dr Cooper]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Gambling has become ubiquitous in our society. It is endemic. We watch the television; we have online roulette in our pockets—it is everywhere. We must also be mindful of the black market as well as the legal gambling companies, and go after both with ferocity to make sure the harms are reduced.

Having established the need to recognise the public health costs of the most dangerous gambling products, we should review the taxation of other harmful forms of gambling, particularly the most dangerous category—the B3 machines in adult gaming centres. It is right that the duty paid by those machines is set at a higher rate. The Gambling Commission, which we have already heard about, must do more to ensure that licence conditions are followed by adult gaming centres. There are widespread reports of breaches of the rules, notably the 80/20 rule relating to the most harmful category of machine, and games that facilitate much higher stakes than is permitted in the licensing codes.

Let us be clear; gambling is highly profitable, and that profit cannot be separated from the harm inflicted. We have already heard this, but it is worth stating again: 60% of the industry’s profits come from 5% of customers who are either addicted or at risk.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the excellent and knowledgeable speech she is making. One other important piece of context in all this is the men’s health strategy, which I know was widely welcomed across the House and was published two weeks ago, and which identified gambling harms as a key element that it needed to tackle. Most of us have welcomed the introduction of the remote gambling tax; that fits very well within the men’s health strategy, because it seeks to disincentivise the most harmful forms of gambling. Does she agree that, while the tax was very welcome, we need to make sure that the money coming in via the levy is as well spent as possible to tackle the harms caused by gambling?

[Dr Cooper]

Those are points very well made. Tackling gambling harms should be at the top of our public health priorities—I make a declaration of interest: I am a public health consultant—to ensure our country thrives economically as well as in health terms. The two are intertwined; we cannot separate them.

Gambling profit cannot be separated from the harm inflicted. In online gambling, 86% of profits come from the top 5% of customers. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Witney and others about the ubiquity of advertising. A recent report showed that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising—an astronomical sum that is fuelling a public health crisis in this country. Targeted digital marketing means that someone with a gambling problem is nine times more likely to be offered a so-called free bet, according to the Gambling Commission.

We need regulatory and legislative tools to tackle industry marketing practices, and we must make sure that children are protected from the proliferation of gambling ads, sponsorship and influencer marketing. As someone who has teenage children, I am only too aware that responsible mobile phone usage only goes so far; we must ensure that our children are protected from this insidious way of introducing people to gambling far too early and far too often. Gambling Commission statistics show that 1.2% of children experience problem gambling, and 3.4% of 11 to 17-year-olds are already being harmed by their gambling. That is astonishing and outrageous. Children should receive independent education about the dangers of gambling, and we must stop incentivising them to gamble through widespread advertising, both online and offline.

We cannot treat gambling as a harmless leisure activity when 14% of British adults are at risk of gambling harm and gambling-related suicides occur in their hundreds every year. Gambling is a matter of public health. I appreciate that it is overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I think it should be overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care, with a legislative framework that is fit for purpose for the digital age.

We have heard about the last Government’s White Paper, which does not give us the right road map to address this public health crisis; it does not address the fact that councils have no adequate powers to prevent adult gaming centres from proliferating locally, sucking the life out of our more deprived communities, and it fails to address advertising, sponsorship and the modern marketing of gambling. We must look to review the White Paper and set a timeline for a new gambling Act.

14:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for leading this important debate, and for setting the scene so well for all of us. What brings me here, like many others who have spoken, are personal relationships with those who have a gambling addiction. That is foremost in my mind when we have debates that refer to gambling regulation.

Not so long ago I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on gambling harm, particularly the impact on health and the damage it does to people across the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland, where the rates are much higher. I am going to give some very worrying stats, but it is great to be here to further advocate better gambling regulation.

About 10 years ago, a couple from Northern Ireland came to me when they heard about gambling legislation and the problems with addiction, and they told me the story of their son. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) told the story about his friend, and this started off similarly, with small bets. However, all of a sudden it escalated to giant amounts of money, and he found himself in so much debt that he could not deal with it, and unfortunately he took his own life. When I think of gambling addiction, I think of those parents and their son, and I think of that loss of life. That story reminds me that there are consequences to gambling. There are many people who gamble for whom it is a flutter and nothing else, but for others it becomes an addiction—a life-focusing addiction that ultimately takes away their life.

I remember one morning getting some petrol from the garage, and there was a wee lady ahead of me in the queue, who had a pram and youngster outside. She bought £10-worth of lottery tickets. Forgive me for saying this, but as I see it, that lady had perhaps hoped that the £10 of lottery tickets would give her the money that she needed for her shopping—the money she needed for her children. I was at the back of the queue, she was at the front, so when I walked out of the shop, she had scraped off all the coverings on the tickets, but there were no winners. She had not won anything, but she had spent £10 on tickets. I realised that this lady was desperate, and had thought a flutter on lottery tickets would bring her the money she needed to help her pay for the groceries and look after her children. It was desperation. Sometimes gambling does that to ordinary people.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his response. I will probably have an ask of him—indeed, I always do. In Northern Ireland there is legislation that is trying to change things, so I hope the Minister can update us on the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to where the legislation is and how we can help them advance it. My understanding is that something has to be done here to make it happen there.

In the last Parliament, I was vice-chair of the APPG for gambling related harm. I was pleased to hear of the proposed changes to gambling regulations in last week’s Budget, when the Chancellor announced that the duty on remote online gambling will increase from 21% to 40%, starting next April. I fully support the Government’s Budget intentions—they are doing the right thing, in my opinion. There was also a change to online sports betting duty, from 15% to 25% from April 2027. Again, I support the Government on that; it is the right thing to do and it should have happened a long time ago.

We are all aware of the dangers of online betting, especially for young people. In the last 12 months there have been very worrying figures about Northern Ireland: 30% of 11 to 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland have gambled in one form or another. Imagine if that was here on the mainland, in England, Wales or Scotland. It is really worrying.

There is no doubt that gambling is becoming increasingly more accessible, with the prevalence of people present online. The DUP leadership in the Northern Ireland Assembly has previously endorsed and used updated legislation that regulates gambling in Northern Ireland, due to the knock-on effect it has been proven to have on people’s lives. The recognition of the potential harm, based on evidence, is important. There is a willingness in Northern Ireland to change the legislation and to perhaps follow the direction that this Government have taken. The older framework for gambling has been described previously as outdated and there is no doubt that there is a need for change.

There are major issues surrounding the accessibility of gambling throughout the United Kingdom. I have seen first hand the devastation that gambling addiction can cause. From the emotional to the financial, the impacts are endless. Unfortunately, it is a hole that many struggle to get out of; they just seem to get in deeper and deeper, and into more and more debt. Sometimes, they see no way out.

The prevalence of gambling in Northern Ireland is among the highest in the whole of the United Kingdom. Reports have shown that Northern Ireland exceeds the mainland statistics by yards—indeed, probably by miles. We also have higher levels of poverty, poor mental health and social disadvantage. Adding gambling on top of that creates a very heavy issue and a potential for harm that is at times hard to comprehend.

We have the potential through this Budget to mark a turning point in how we regard gambling, particularly online and remote gambling. This is a clear step to taking responsibility, but more must still be done. This is not enough. The Government and this Budget have set a trend that I and many others welcome, but it is not enough.

All regions across the whole of the United Kingdom need to do more to ensure that this is not an accessible process. We must embed robust safeguards to protect young people, address online gambling and aid vulnerable individuals and those who already face hardships, which means stronger regulation of advertising and tighter restrictions.

I look forward very much to seeing the plans put into action and to enhancing the regulation across the whole of the United Kingdom. Today, I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply to the requests we are putting to him. I believe the Government are going in the right direction. Let us do more. Let us save all these young people with addictions and give them the chance to have a better life, which we are duty bound to provide.

15:07

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. We have heard some sad and powerful stories.

Reforms to address the risks and harms associated with gambling are long overdue. Many families and communities across the country continue to feel the consequences of problem gambling.

The gambling industry has grown significantly in recent years. Excluding the National Lottery, it is an £11.5 billion sector, with profit margins in some companies well above the UK average for non-financial businesses. Yet taxation levels in the UK for online gambling remain lower than those in several other countries.

At the same time, gambling harm imposes a substantial cost on society. It is estimated to cost our economy around £1.4 billion a year through financial harms and impacts on physical and mental health, employment and pressures on public services. Research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that a person experiencing serious gambling problems may cost the public purse an additional £3,700 a year. Further analysis from NERA indicates that the economic contribution of remote gambling is relatively modest compared with other forms of discretionary spending.

We must also acknowledge the serious mental health consequences linked to gambling. Public Health England has estimated that there may be more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year. Recent data from the Gambling Commission also suggests that the scale of harm may be greater than previously understood, with 2.5% of respondents in its latest survey scoring eight or above on the problem gambling severity index scale, placing them in the highest risk category. The numbers are concerning and highlight the need for a regulatory framework that can better identify and reduce risk.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for an increase to remote gaming duty. we were pleased to see the Government implement that policy at the Budget, but we believe they can go further, by ensuring that more of the revenue raised is directed specifically towards treatment and support for those affected by gambling-related harms.

Taxation alone will not reduce risk or ensure accountability. That is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently called for stronger restrictions on gambling advertising, particularly given the sheer volume of adverts on television and online, and for effective, proportionate affordability checks, so that people are not gambling at levels that put them at significant financial risk. It is also essential that the Gambling Commission has the tools and resources it needs to take firmer action against the black market, where unregulated operators pose serious dangers to consumers.

These proposals are not about demonising gambling or those who enjoy it responsibly. Many people do so every day without experiencing harm. Rather, the proposals are about ensuring that our regulatory system reflects the realities of today’s gambling landscape, particularly the rapid growth of online gambling and the emerging risks faced by young people and vulnerable adults. We must ensure that policy is consistent and fair, so that we can protect those who are most at risk. By taking those steps, we can strike a better balance, and support a sustainable industry while ensuring that people are adequately protected from harm.

15:10

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. For transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Regulation of gambling must be a careful balance to avoid unintended consequences. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to take a gamble on this regulated industry, and on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people, who are at risk of gambling harms. She took an ideological position instead of a practical one. Despite clear warnings, she chose to fuel the black market, where there are no protections for problem gamblers, and to jeopardise thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the regulated sector as a result, as we have heard today.

Labour’s tax raid was not just anti-gambling industry; it was anti-consumer and, we believe, anti-common sense. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this debate, so that we can properly interrogate the facts and the impact that the Chancellor’s actions will have on the more than 22 million people across the country who safely enjoy a flutter each month. To put that number into context, it is more than 34,500 people per constituency represented in this House—enough to enjoy a majority anywhere in the country.

Whether or not Members like gambling, the facts are clear. The highly regulated gambling sector in the United Kingdom supports tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds in tax each year, and sustains industries and sports, from horseracing to the high street betting shops that sit firmly in the fabric of the communities that we all represent.

The choices the Chancellor has made will, according to modelling by EY, result in an estimated 16,000 job losses throughout the UK. Those will be particularly concentrated in areas where large operators are based, such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, before filtering through to betting shop closures on high streets throughout our constituencies. The Labour party has so far failed to explain how those missing jobs and business rates will be paid for—perhaps by even higher welfare spending and taxes.

We are all aware that, particularly in recent years, the debate about gambling and its regulation has been dominated by those who see gambling exclusively through the lens of harm. It is, of course, right to support those who struggle with addiction, and I am proud to support a range of specialist charities in that space that do fantastic work on the frontline, helping people across the country. However, the vast majority of punters enjoy a bet safely each week. We cannot and should not build a regulatory system that assumes that every person who gambles is high risk. That is simply untrue. It is the nanny state on steroids from the left of British politics. From buying a weekly National Lottery ticket to a casual acca with your mates on the 3 o’clock kick-offs and beyond, there is a spectrum of risk and reward, as well as exposures, the complexities of which we must appreciate and understand.

The oversimplification of the issue does far more harm than good. We can learn how that happens from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands. At the start of this year, the Dutch Government raised their gambling tax on gross gaming revenue from 30.5% to 34.2%—a much smaller rise than that which this Government have announced, with another rise planned. The Dutch Government combined it with much tighter restrictions, strict spending caps, deposit limits and sweeping advertising bans. Within months, the Netherlands has seen regulated gambling revenue collapse by around 25% and tax receipts fall significantly, despite the higher rate, which has left a €200 million shortfall. The percentage of gamblers using regulated sites dropped below 50%, and the Dutch regulator itself reported that illegal gambling sites now receive more visits than regulated ones, with searches for the “100 best illegal gambling sites” surging.

That is the reality of the situation in a comparable European country. Over-regulation and excessive taxation have driven gamblers to the black market. We can see the same pattern developing here in the UK, with even the OBR highlighting that the black market will gain from those tax choices. That is before we even consider debating outstanding issues such as affordability checks. In the black market, there are no affordability checks, no safer gambling tools, no self-exclusion and no protection at all for punters.

We can see that moralistic and heavy-handed regulations simply displace gambling into the unregulated sector, rather than reducing gambling rates and risks of harm. The sector could not be clearer: once punters have entered the black market, they are unlikely to come back. That would be a lose-lose situation for the Government that could result in lower tax revenue and fewer jobs, a loss of revenue for bookies and sports that rely on their sponsorship, and a loss of consumer protections for the public. Sadly, however, that is where the Government are now heading fast.

There is another area where the Government’s policy is simply not functioning: the new statutory levy. The industry has spent the past three years implementing more than 60 measures from the gambling White Paper. The statutory levy, introduced in April this year, is one of the most significant and most costly. Operators have now made their first payments under the mandatory system, totalling more than £100 million, but there is still no clarity about how charities such as Gordon Moody, GamCare, Betknowmore UK and others that do fantastic work in the treatment and prevention space can actually access any of that.

We have warned the Government about that, privately and publicly, for many months. That is why we did not feel that we could support the gambling levy legislation as drafted. To date, only UK Research and Innovation has published basic guidance. Organisations that were promised long-term certainty have no idea how, when or even if they will be able to bid for levy funds to continue their vital work. Frontline charities supporting people suffering from gambling harms tell us that they cannot plan ahead, cannot recruit or even retain staff, and in some cases cannot continue services at all because the system remains so opaque.

Before the Government bring down another wave of major reforms, impose the most aggressive tax rises in Europe, and throw operators and charities into further uncertainty, should they not first ensure that the levy is actually up and running properly? Should they not ensure that charities with experts who have decades of experience are not forced to close because of the ongoing ideological madness in Westminster, which has stacked the deck against those with more pragmatic views about gambling and how we prevent harms? It makes no sense—literally none—to introduce new burdens when the existing regulatory framework is still incomplete and not functioning as the Government promised. Perhaps if the Minister could get his ministerial colleagues to properly engage with anybody in the sector, the Government might have a clue about what is happening: they are gambling with lives.

Protecting consumers means keeping them in the regulated domestic market if they choose to gamble: that is a very simple truth. I am all in favour of bashing the bookies—it is a long-established British tradition—but I want it to be done by the punter, not by this anti-fun Labour Government. Hon. Members should already know that British operators, although not perfect, prevent the use of credit cards, enforce 18-plus age verification, operate GamStop self-exclusion, display prominent safer gambling messages, use data to identify markers of harm, adhere to the strict advertising rules that are in place, and provide stable funding for research, education and treatment. The unregulated market that the Government are fuelling to the tune of £6 billion in extra stakes does none of that. Once someone has moved into that unregulated environment, there is no longer any meaningful ability to protect them from gambling harms.

Will the Minister personally review the commissioning of prevention and treatment to ensure that it is being managed fairly and that charities are not being deliberately excluded? Will he commit to a formal review, across the House, of affordability checks and of the pilot that has been extended by the Gambling Commission? Does he believe that the £26 million of funding given to the Gambling Commission is sufficient to stop the growth of the black market? Lastly, what message does he have for the thousands of employees at risk of losing their jobs this Christmas because of Labour’s tax raid?

15:18

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is great to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for this important debate. I am pleased to respond to it. I congratulate—as all other hon. Members have—the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate, and on the balanced way in which he presented his case, with the gambling industry on one side and the harms that it causes on the other.

The Government care deeply about gambling regulation. The number of debates that we have had on the issue, and the constructive contributions that we have had from hon. Members from both sides of the House, show that Parliament is very interested in the issue as well. Since the election last year, we have tried hard to strike the right balance between taking action to reduce gambling-related harm in areas where it has the greatest impact and supporting the gambling sector to modernise. I wish to set out how we have approached that task and what might come next, not least in the context of last week’s Budget. I hope to address as many points from hon. Members as I possibly can.

Gambling is enjoyed responsibly by many tens of millions of people, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), laid out. It is an industry that is part of our national life. Having a little flutter on the grand national and betting on the world cup semi-final or the grand prix are the kinds of big events that bring people together. My mother was a bookmaker. What she could do on that chalkboard on grand national day to work out the odds and the winnings—and often the losses—for the punters was something to behold. Many hon. Members have mentioned family members, and I remember my grandfather looking to win that million pounds with 25p a bet on a Saturday afternoon—he died a pauper, never quite making it that far. Gambling also brings people together, so that flutter is something that we should cherish. The industry has worked very hard to protect it and, in last week’s Budget, we tried very hard to protect it too.

For many people, including many Members who have spoken, the regulation of the online sector is of the greatest concern. We recognise that the risk of harm is greater for many online products and we have taken targeted action on that. In May, we introduced a £2 online slots stake limit for 18 to 24-year-olds and a £5 limit for those 25 and over. Those limits are a targeted intervention to protect those most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses. It took a long time to get that through—it was a debate that went on right through the last Parliament if I recall—and many hon. Members, including the former Member for Hyndburn, took that forward to get some limits in place.

Several hon. Members have mentioned advertising. We recognise the impact that harmful gambling can have on children and vulnerable people, and we are committed to strengthening protections for those at risk. There are already rules to ensure that adverts are not targeted at, and do not strongly appeal to, children and those at risk of harm. The hon. Member for Witney majored on the way that advertising can affect children, and I am grateful for his contribution on that, so I want to address it particularly.

We want to protect young people from gambling-related harm, and my noble Friend the gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, cares a great deal about this issue as well. As part of the prevention stream of the statutory gambling levy, gambling education funding will improve access to and support for gambling education. We also welcome the Department for Education’s expanded guidance on gambling as part of the statutory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am sure that my noble Friend would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Witney to discuss those harms for young people.

I will run through some of the prevention measures that have been introduced that the shadow Minister mentioned, such as financial vulnerability checks, safer online casino game design, improving consumer choice on direct marketing, Think 25, extending test purchasing to small operators, financial risk assessments, better access to safer gambling tools such as deposit limits that restrict people’s gambling, and socially responsible incentives. I do hear, however, that there are issues with trying to pull people into gambling—to get them on to the platforms and betting—through free spins, free bets and free cash. That is something we should be looking at.

The industry has voluntarily done a number of things. It has introduced GamProtect, as we have heard already, and the front-of-shirt sponsorship ban for next season, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I wish Stoke all the very best in being promoted from the championship; my own club, Heart of Midlothian, have burst my coupon on many a Saturday afternoon by not getting the results that they surely deserved. The industry has also voluntarily introduced improved gambling transaction and bank blocking, which is ongoing, and worked on creating the gambling ombudsman. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is no longer in his place, but we are very much looking at that ombudsman issue. It will take primary legislation to bring in something like that, but I assure hon. Members that it has not left the agenda.

We need to work closely with the gambling industry, where we can, on those big advertising issues to ensure that advertising does not exacerbate harm. We intend to redouble our efforts to work cross-Government and with tech platforms to address illegal gambling advertising, which poses the most risk for children and vulnerable people, as hon. Members have mentioned. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new, evidence-based model for independently developed safer gambling messages.

I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen in today’s written ministerial statement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, that the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million so far. That will be ringfenced, ensuring that it is used solely to address gambling-related harm across the UK. That will support our priority of making sure that there is sufficient independent and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services to tackle and treat gambling-related harm. It will also help to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and in the provision of treatment and support.

To answer the shadow Minister’s challenge on the timescale, we have appointed a number of commissioners to oversee the delivery of levy funding. Some 20% of levy funding has been allocated to UK Research and Innovation for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling, and to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives. Some 30% will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments—they will get their share of that—to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harms across all three nations of Great Britain: Wales, Scotland and England. In England, the OHID will prioritise the development of an industry-independent public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention. I think that answers some of the issues that we heard from the shadow Minister about how expertise needs to be involved in this process and to be funded to deliver on some of those issues.

This is really important: the remaining 50% of the levy will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents to commission the full treatment pathway, working collaboratively with the third sector to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that this should be a public health issue, and I think that the breakdown of that £120 million from the levy—the amount going directly into health issues—shows that the levy is dealing with this as a public health issue, rather than it being a gambling or DCMS issue.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland, of course, but this is just a Great Britain initiative. Gambling, as he mentioned, is substantially devolved in Northern Ireland, where a separate regulatory system is in place. We are open to working with the Government in Northern Ireland on issues relating to gambling regulation. I understand that DCMS officials—many of them are sitting behind me—are having a meeting with counterparts in Northern Ireland on this very issue next week, so hopefully there will be progress on that. If there any issues that the hon. Member wants to bring forward, he should please get in touch with the ministerial team and we will certainly take those forward, on behalf of Northern Ireland, to help where we can.

Let me say a little about the modernising measures that we have put in place. Our work to tackle gambling-related harm has not prevented us from introducing modernisation measures, where appropriate, in a balanced way. For example, in June we introduced modernising reforms to the casino licensing regime to support growth in the land-based casino sector. Those were enacted following consideration of all the available evidence and are proportionate modernisations that reflect the changes in gambling behaviour since former restrictions were set many years ago. In October, we launched a consultation on changes to stakes and prizes for low-risk category D machines to support the family entertainment sector that runs seaside amusement arcades and piers. We all remember, as kids, being on the pier and putting 1p and 2p pieces into those kinds of low-stake machines.

Only last week, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of bingo duty in recognition of the benefits that bingo halls bring to our local communities and in support of a sector loved by many. I am sure that the shadow Minister will have the odd bingo game at one of his fundraisers to entertain the masses—or not. We are also consulting on the issue of venues that are operating under bingo licences but may be difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres to see whether there is an appetite for change to ensure that any premises with a bingo licence has bingo at the heart of its offering.

I know that there have been concerns about consumer protection in adult gaming centres. Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, has been clear that she will not consider any deregulatory changes to adult gaming centres without improved protections. The industry has announced new measures on self-exclusion, and the Government will continue to work with it and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the protections are fit for purpose.

Many Members have also raised concerns about the concentration of gambling premises, particularly in deprived areas. To strengthen the powers available to local authorities, the Government will introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing as soon as parliamentary time allows, and that will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. I hope that answers the question that the hon. Member for Witney raised.

Let me also mention the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central about the way in which the gambling industry supports local communities as well as sports through that kind of advertising. Sports support is obviously an issue for governing bodies, and the governing bodies for the premiership have determined that such advertising on the front of shirts will not be allowed next season. We would encourage every sporting body, or any body, that is taking advertising from the industry to look very clearly at what the impact of that is.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. He is right that a number of sporting sectors derive a lot of sponsorship from the gambling sector, such as darts, the English Football League and horseracing. If, as a result of the tax changes announced last week, those companies withdraw their sponsorship, do the Government have a contingency plan? Have they had conversations with those sectors about how to make up that shortfall? In particular, I think £350 million goes into horseracing every year from gambling companies through sponsorship. If it loses that, the horseracing sector in this country will die.

[Ian Murray]

We talk to the gambling industry about that constantly. My noble Friend Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, is taking some of those discussions forward. We will continue to monitor it because a huge amount of sponsorship comes from the gambling industry. That is not a judgment on whether it is right or wrong, as we have heard today how damaging it may be; the hon. Member for Witney mentioned that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising. We should monitor it, and individual governing bodies will be looking at it. Premier league football is a good example of where a governing body has made a decision on shirt sponsorship, although I do not think it will have any difficulty in attracting sponsors, but other sports will find it more difficult to attract new money. We have seen this before with tobacco and alcohol advertising being banned, and we will continue to monitor it.

I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for telling the personal story of his friend M. I am sure that story is reflected all over the country. We have heard from other Members this afternoon about suicides and the impact that gambling has had on families and the wider community. We should always reflect on those stories when talking about the positives and negatives of gambling.

I want to address the gambling taxation changes, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, mentioned in some detail. The changes to gambling duties were outlined by the Chancellor last week at the Budget, which we will vote on this evening. Everyone will be aware that, in addition to the abolishing of bingo duty, we have announced an increase in the remote gambling duty from 21% to 40%. We have also announced a new remote betting duty set at 25%, with a carve-out to protect horseracing.

We have introduced those increases in gambling duties to reflect the way in which the sector has gone and to support our public finances. I take issue with how the shadow Minister presented that issue, because it is all about making balanced judgments. Of the money that will be raised for the Treasury, £26 million will be used to tackle the black and illegal market, which is a concern for us all. The money will also ensure that we can pull 450,000 children out of poverty, addressing any correlation between gambling addiction and poverty. The Chancellor and I believe that pulling 450,000 children out of poverty would be the best societal way of using that money.

With the Budget changes, it is clear that the Government are not anti-gambling. I have set out some of the measures that we have introduced in support of the sector. Through the Budget, we have also sought to limit the impact on the high street and protect activities that are lower risk and have greater levels of employment. We recognise the dangers posed by the illegal market, and for those in the regulated sector and those at risk of gambling-related harm. That is why we have allocated that £26 million to the Gambling Commission over three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. That will be kept under constant review. We also hope to work closely with the industry and others to see how we can go further in this space.

The issue of consumer awareness was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), and by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I hope that we can work on customer awareness to demonstrate that the regulated sector is where people should be, and to spot the unregulated sector. If someone were to land on a website from an advert on social media, is it obvious to the vast majority whether it is a regulated or unregulated website? How would they know? I suspect that the unregulated sector has rather less regulated ways of pulling customers in. Education on customer and consumer awareness through the Gambling Commission would certainly be something that we should look at as well. There is no doubt that the social harms in the illegal industry are more amplified than those in the regulated industry.

I will talk a little about the national lottery, because it is a part of gambling that we do not tend to talk about in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned national lottery scratchcards, but most people do not see playing the national lottery as gambling. It would be interesting for some analysis to be done about what the public thinks gambling actually is—whether it is the 25p accumulator on the Grand National or playing the national lottery. There is no doubt that the national lottery is a national institution and it has had a huge impact on good causes in our communities. I suspect that a lot of people in this country play the national lottery, yes, to win the big prize, drift off on a yacht somewhere in the Mediterranean and hand in their resignation—I suppose it would be to the Prime Minister in my case if I were to win—and retire. But people also play the national lottery knowing that a lot of that money goes into good causes and they see transformation, whether through heritage or charitable cases and those kinds of things.

To conclude, it is important that as a Government we now take stock of where we are. I know that there are further regulatory reforms that many Members want to see, and we will continue to act when evidence shows us that we need to intervene. Nevertheless, it is important that we implement and evaluate our recent reforms properly and give them time to bed in before moving on to the next thing. For example, we need to ensure that the three strands of the statutory levy are running smoothly. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the shadow Minister. We need to fully engage with stakeholders to understand the impact of the tax changes on their businesses and provide as much certainty as we can while that happens. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in particular. This all requires a bit of time to bed in.

Ultimately, the Government want a gambling sector that is modern, sustainable and protects the most vulnerable from harm but that is also thriving. Our manifesto committed us to working with the industry to ensure responsible gambling, and that remains important to us. In parallel, we will continue to regulate gambling in a balanced and modernising way and support the regulatory sector where we can.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome some of the submissions that the Minister has made. Could I press him on what monitoring there will be of movement towards the unregulated market? The OBR report is quite clear that the Government expect to see a proportion of people from the regulated sector move to the unregulated sector. The increased money for the Gambling Commission to tackle that is welcome. However, can the Minister say whether there will be a concerted and specific effort to monitor the direction of travel? The Netherlands saw a five times increase when it made some changes, and is struggling to recoup that. I want to make sure that we learn from those lessons and do not end up repeating the same drive towards the more damaging part of the sector.

[Ian Murray]

I think that the Government have acknowledged the issue around the black and illegal market, given the £26 million that has gone into the Gambling Commission. Since April 2024, the Gambling Commission has significantly increased its disruption activity and has focused on finding innovative ways to tackle the illegal market. The Crime and Policing Bill, introduced to Parliament in February, has passed through the House of Commons and is now in Committee in the other place. It will give the Gambling Commission greater powers to act quicker to take down illegal websites, so there are legislative moves on this issue as well.

As part of the Budget there is £26 million specifically for the Gambling Commission to increase its investment resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. The message from Government is that if someone is operating in the illegal market, we are coming after them—legislatively, regulatorily and with money. We will continue to monitor the outcomes from that.

This has been a very balanced debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Witney for securing it. No doubt we will return to this for regular updates on where we are. I hope that the levy, the new tax changes and the money for the Gambling Commission for the illegal market can now bed in and that we can try and get some of that £120 million levy into the organisations that deal with gambling harms. I hope, also, that we can celebrate that gambling is harmless for the vast majority of the public who participate in it—and something that this Government are very keen to support.

15:39

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), as well as all the Members who attended the debate; and you, Sir Desmond, for chairing it. I appreciate the sensible, fair and respectful way that we have handled the debate and the shared recognition that gambling can be fun but can also do a whole lot of damage. We have to try to balance that as best we can. I think we have all tried to do that in our own way.

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for doing his best to make the other case. He did a fair job of that. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did excellent jobs in detailing the damage done, particularly so with regard to M, who my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned. After the debate, I will be asking about where he is now.

I also thank the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for bringing a great range of thought with regard to the public health aspects of this issue. They made very valuable contributions on that. The shadow Minister did a great job of making the case for the other side of the argument.

I thank the Minister for all his input. It was very helpful that he explained where the Government are on the gambling levy, local authorities and the cumulative impact assessments. I will admit to being less clear about the Government’s position on online advertising and what they are planning to do with that £2 billion—when, where and how. I look forward to staying in touch on that. Similarly, the issue of the ombudsman was not covered in detail. I would welcome an intervention from the Minister to provide some clarity on that.

[Ian Murray]

I am surprised and grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. The gambling ombudsman is the most effective way to deliver independent alternative dispute resolution. We know that that will require primary legislation, and we are conscious of the need to put in place an appropriate mechanism as soon as possible. It has not been ruled out. Work on this is ongoing, but it will require primary legislation. As I said at the end of my speech, with all the other things that we want to do to try to bed this in, we are very conscious that the industry is having to deal with an awful lot of change at the moment, but it is still on the agenda.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that. I believe we have covered everything. I appreciate everybody’s being here.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.

15:42

Sitting suspended.

Women and Girls: Isle of Wight

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for women and girls on the Isle of Wight.

It is a fantastic pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and it is of course a great pleasure to be here to advocate on behalf of the backbone of my constituency: the women and girls of the Isle of Wight.

I am well aware of the fact that currently two men represent the Isle of Wight in Parliament, with the only diversity being that of our political parties, rather than our genders. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) is present, but the fact we are both men makes it even more important that we strongly advocate on behalf of women and girls on the island, who face added disadvantage not just because of their gender but because of where they were born and raised.

Neither I nor the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is a woman, which should be obvious, and the local council, on which we both serve, is only 30% female. That is nearly 10% below the national average for local authorities. Unfortunately, the picture is no brighter in business leadership: some estimates suggest that just 32% of the island’s business directors are women.

I recognise that symbolic representation is not everything, but my central point is that I want girls growing up on the island to know that opportunities, whether in politics or business, are not reserved for men. Girls are equally capable and equally deserving, and should feel just as able to pursue such roles as their male classmates.

I will touch briefly on transport, not to stray from the Minister’s remit but to highlight how poor ferry services have compounded existing inequality for women and girls on the island. The current ferry service makes it harder to access healthcare, secure job opportunities or escape domestic abuse. The challenges that exist for women and girls on the mainland are infinitely magnified for those who are effectively penned in by the Solent.

The Minister will be well aware of the devastating impact of sexual violence. The trauma is profound in itself, but imagine, after experiencing rape or sexual assault, having to travel to the mainland for the dignity of having a medical examination in private. This is not a hypothetical scenario: for some sexual assault victims on the Isle of Wight, it is their lived reality. St Mary’s hospital lacks a dedicated sexual assault referral centre, forcing survivors to travel to Portsmouth to obtain the physical evidence needed to secure justice.

Surviving an assault is already unbearable. Imagine then being forced to travel for well over an hour, still wearing the clothes you were attacked in, just so you can access the medical care and emotional support you need. This is far from an isolated problem: as of 2025, violent and sexual offences remain the most commonly recorded crimes on the island, and the lack of local provision to address the escalation represents a clear failure to meet the needs of those who require help the most.

Crimes related to domestic abuse on the Isle of Wight rose by 25% between 2018 and 2023. Yet the island’s only refuge, which has a capacity of just six rooms, operates with severely limited space. The organisation that provides much of the vital support, Paragon, told me that many women have been forced to leave the island entirely, uprooting their homes and leaving their communities and support networks to reach safety.

Estimates suggest that women on the Isle of Wight who attempt to escape domestic abuse face an additional “cost of escape” of around £10,000, compared with victims on the mainland. As I highlighted in the recent debate I led on protecting children from domestic abuse, the lack of local provision forces the most vulnerable into an impossible choice: take on crippling debt, or remain with an abusive partner because financial barriers make safety unattainable.

Sadly, that is not the only area in which women on the island face inequality. Those who make the profoundly difficult decision to seek an abortion after 13 weeks are required to leave the island and cross the Solent to access care. The financial strain, the challenge of arranging travel and the absence of family or community support during such an invasive and emotionally draining procedure only compounds the distress. No woman makes this choice lightly, least of all in the later stages of pregnancy. Yet it is those with the fewest resources who shoulder the greatest burden, forced to undergo the ordeal far from home, without the reassurance of familiar surroundings, and often at overwhelming personal and financial cost.

Medical inequality for women on the island does not end there. For those who continue their pregnancy, specialist services are not always available locally. St Mary’s has a special care baby unit, but it cannot manage the births of extremely premature babies, severe labour complications, or newborns who require intensive care or surgery.

Although the maternity care provided at St Mary’s is among the best in the region, if not the country, the lack of advanced facilities means that women facing traumatic labours often endure the added stress of travelling off-island for critical treatment. Although it is true that many women across the country travel far when faced with complex pregnancies and deliveries, for women on the island the journey involves ferry crossings, adding another layer of discomfort and delay. For young women who are already navigating a frightening and uncertain time, it becomes yet another barrier to safe, equitable care.

The healthcare inequalities alone make a compelling case for Government intervention, whether to improve maternal care or abortion services, but the challenges do not stop there. The educational outcomes and job opportunities for women and girls remain severely limited.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. The stats in a recent UK-wide report were really interesting, showing that every abuse victim may experience around 50 incidents of abuse before they first report it to the authorities. By that stage, much damage has been done. For all of us, no matter where we are, that undermines the reality of the domestic abuse figures. Does the hon. Member agree that the very thing he is asking for—better facilities, better protection, and better access to those who can help—must be in place wherever we are in the United Kingdom, including the Isle of Wight?

[Mr Quigley]

I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. The numbers he mentioned should certainly terrify us all. Someone going through 50 incidents of abuse before reporting it is the hidden story. I thank him for his intervention and agree entirely with his point.

The barriers are exacerbated by our poor cross-Solent connectivity, which restricts access to training, higher education and employment beyond the island. One of the Government’s key ambitions is to ensure that every child gets the best possible start in life, but if we are serious about making that a reality for children on the Isle of Wight, additional support is essential. For some girls—and boys—born there, the cost of cross-Solent travel means they have never left the island. That is a missed opportunity to experience the wider world and broaden their horizons.

I am pleased to have worked with the ferry companies to introduce an initiative offering free ferry travel for West Wight residents on their 18th birthday, but two return tickets alone cannot tackle the deeper challenges they face. Unless we address the barriers head on, we risk limiting not only their access to education, but their aspirations and future opportunities.

This year’s GCSE and A-level results paint a stark picture. As the Isle of Wight Observer put it, students on the island face an “uphill battle”. Our local performance has fallen significantly below national outcomes across key benchmarks, placing it at the very bottom of the national rankings. Just 62.5% of students achieved a standard pass of grade 4 or above, compared with the national average of 70.5%. Every one of the statistics puts the island at the bottom among English counties.

Although I am speaking about education broadly, this is fundamentally an issue of equality, not only between island and mainland students, but in ensuring that girls have the tools, confidence and opportunities to pursue any education or career path they aspire to.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour on securing this debate and highlighting the issues, and thank him for his ongoing work to help to make the island a better place to live for women and girls. I associate myself with all his remarks and arguments. Policymakers and commissioners have often overlooked the unique challenges that we face as an island. I urge the current Government, although it would be true of any Government, to remember the challenges we face and to be prepared to make special provision for us, because we are a populated island in England, which is a unique thing.

[Mr Quigley]

It will come as no great surprise to hear that the hon. Member and I agree on many things. Despite our opposition politically, as family MPs on the Isle of Wight we share many frustrations with the limitations of being on an island. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

All too often, the opportunities feel harder for girls to access, which is something we must change. Educational outcomes are not an abstract issue for women and girls on the island: they shape their entire future. Although jobs in hospitality and retail exist on the island, I worry about the young women for whom those sectors hold little appeal. Too often they feel that meaningful opportunities and long-term careers are out of reach. I am aware that that is not an unusual feeling for young people but, as I have set out, due to a variety of factors, young girls on the island may feel that the opportunities are still further from them. That is why targeted support for girls leaving education on the Isle of Wight, helping them to access a wider range of career paths, would make a real and lasting difference.

The picture I have painted today may seem like a story of lost opportunities for the island’s women and girls, but I want to end on a different note. I want to celebrate the resilience and ambition of the women and girls I have had the privilege to meet as an MP. As I am sure my colleague from the other side of the island would agree, the bright and confident students, the determined businesswomen, and the mothers, sisters and daughters on the island all demonstrate that women and girls on the Isle of Wight do not lack drive or aspiration. What they lack is the support to turn their ambition into opportunity, whether through access to medical care when they need it or through meaningful job prospects when they leave school. With the right backing from the Government, I truly believe they can not only reach those opportunities but thrive in them.

Women on the Isle of Wight are among the bravest, smartest and funniest people I know—and that is not just because my wife, who is one of them, is watching. They understand the added challenges that come with living on an island. Some extra burdens are to be expected, but the burden we are placing on them now is a burden too far. Whether it is in respect of healthcare inequalities, domestic abuse, limited job opportunities, or the combination of all those factors, the women and girls of the island deserve better, and I will keep fighting to make sure that they get it.

16:10

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing the debate, which has given us the opportunity to hear about the work he is doing and the issues his constituents, particularly the women and girls he has spoken about so powerfully, are facing. I am also grateful for the recognition that it is incredibly important to have a gender lens for our work. We should look at where there are inequalities, whether in education, health or services, and at why it is important for local health services and the Government to focus on how we tackle them.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the case he made on making work pay and making sure that equality for women and girls is a reality in terms of the challenges that are being faced. I also pay tribute to his work across a range of vital equalities issues. He has a reputation in Parliament, having championed domestic abuse services and been a steadfast voice on health inequalities, and through his commitment to social progress and tackling barriers to opportunity for his constituents.

My hon. Friend will recognise that there is so much more to be done. Along with the contributions from other Members, he outlined the issues while recognising that where we are is the consequence of how services have worked to date. Together, we must do more to confront the challenges faced by women and girls across the whole of the United Kingdom, including the Isle of Wight, and encourage more opportunities.

It comes down to this: when we get it right for women, we get it right for everyone. Others might say that when women and girls do well, it benefits everyone. Whichever way we phrase it, it is clearly incredibly important to make sure that we tackle the specific issues of inequalities. Girls should know that they are very much the building blocks of our society. They shape our workplaces, our families and all our futures. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issues he has mentioned.

My hon. Friend made the point really powerfully that women’s equality and economic growth go hand in hand. The work to ensure access to opportunity for all young people must continue across the whole of our country, including on the Isle of Wight. On his point about statistical underachievement compared with national averages, it is important to understand the reasons for that, be they environmental or anything else, so that all our young people everywhere can access to the same opportunity. I am sure this will not be our last conversation on this range of issues, given the work he is doing in his constituency.

I will briefly discuss violence against women and girls, which my hon. Friend also raised. Work is under way to protect women and girls across the United Kingdom from violence, including in the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend will be aware of our target to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. We have committed £53 million of funding over four years to roll out the Drive project across England and Wales, which focuses on perpetrators, working directly with those causing harm in their relationships, to prevent abusive behaviour and protect victims. That also relates to a point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the number of calls a woman may make to the police about domestic abuse. Earlier intervention, before abuse escalates, will be an important part of prevention and ensuring that women are protected from abuse.

Last year, we launched the new domestic abuse protection orders in selected police forces and courts. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice recently announced that more than 1,000 victims have been protected through those protection orders since their roll-out just a year ago. We have also set out new measures to tackle stalking and spiking, to improve the support and response that victims receive. This month the Government will fund intensified police activity across the country to target spiking, reaffirming our commitment to tackling that abhorrent crime.

Victims deserve better support at every stage, which is why we will introduce domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, and specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force. We are also looking to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve. That includes fast-tracking rape cases with specialist courts in England and Wales, and providing free legal advice to support victims and ensure that their rights are upheld. It is the case that survivors on the Isle of Wight will face significantly higher financial barriers when fleeing abuse, in part due to the cost of crossing the Solent. It is useful to mention that, since 2021, local authorities in England have a duty, under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to ensure that victims and their children can access support in safe accommodation when they need it.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government allocated £160 million in 2025-26, this financial year, to support delivery, £30 million more than the previous year, of which the Isle of Wight received just under £400,000 through the safe accommodation grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West might already have explored that option. It would be for the Isle of Wight to allocate that funding based on local need. He may want to explore how that has been used and the extent to which it has been needed. Future funding will be determined through future business planning.

We are also making important progress in other areas. I will make a few more remarks about women in the workplace and access to opportunity. I am sure it is an issue for us all that the gender pay gap still exists. Importantly, it decreased to 12.8% in April 2025, down from 13.1% in April 2024. We are pleased to see that progress, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we can and must go further. That is why, as part of the Employment Rights Bill, we are taking the first steps towards requiring employers to publish action plans alongside their gender pay gap figures. Those action plans will detail how employers are narrowing their gaps and supporting employees, particularly through the menopause.

Prevention and education are fundamental to the approach that we take to protecting women and girls from violence, which we know is happening increasingly early. We also know that it is an issue with teenagers. It is extremely important to tackle the root causes of these crimes, which are often driven by social media. That includes supporting our education system to teach children about respectful and healthy relationships and consent. We are committed to providing the right support for victims of VAWG, including domestic abuse. In May 2025, we announced £19.9 million of investment to provide vital support to victims of VAWG. That includes £6 million for helplines and £1.96 million for the flexible fund to support victims to flee abuse.

I will now make some remarks about our women’s health strategy. Supporting women’s health is also part of supporting women to be able to achieve their ambitions, to be able to work, and to be with their families and friends. We have been making progress with our 10-year NHS plan, which sets out the inequities that lead to poor health, including for women. We have also made significant progress on ensuring extra appointments to tackle the huge backlog of NHS appointments and waiting lists, which we inherited from the previous Government. We have delivered 5.2 million extra appointments in our first year of government and we have also made emergency hormonal contraception free in pharmacies across England.

Indeed, we are also adding menopause questions to the NHS health check. We are also renewing the women’s health strategy to build on these achievements—this includes substantial investment in cutting-edge research, funding of a world-leading trial in which almost 700,000 women will take part, and testing how cutting-edge Al tools can be used to catch breast cancer cases earlier. It is also important that we continue to look at ways that we can introduce new drugs, and support earlier detection and treatment of conditions such as endometriosis.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West for putting the issues facing women and girls in the Isle of Wight firmly on the agenda and for the work he does in representing his constituents. I am sure that he will continue discussions with Ministers across the range of Departments that he has spoken about, in relation to health, education, local government, policing and crime, and that he will continue to make a huge impact in the Isle of Wight.

Question put and agreed to.

16:23

Sitting suspended.

Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of catapults and anti-social behaviour.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am going to give this speech backwards, inasmuch as I am going to start with the end and the ask. I ask the Government to introduce an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is in Committee in the House of Lords. I would like the Bill amended to reduce the minimum age at which community protection notices can be issued, from 16 years old to 10 years old—the age of criminal responsibility in England. That was proposed under the last Government’s version of the Bill, which died when the general election was called.

Having started with the end of my speech, now let me begin at the beginning. I represent Spelthorne—I feel compelled to remind the House that Spelthorne is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything immediately south of Heathrow airport down to the River Thames. As well as having a decent stretch of one bank of the River Thames, from Staines to Sunbury, we are also blessed with extensive and much-prized green spaces such as Staines Moor, Sunbury Park and Leyland Park. Water is a major feature of Spelthorne, because the land has been quarried over the years—much of it for the building of the M25—and we are home to half of London’s drinking water, stored in four enormous reservoirs.

All that means that Spelthorne, for a largely suburban area inside the M25, is a good home for wildlife, particularly bird life. Indeed, every year visitors flock from miles around to witness the start of that most quintessentially English and iconic event, swan upping, which starts at Sunbury lock. We are also home to the Swan Sanctuary in Felix Lane; started in the 1980s, it now cares for injured and damaged mute swans from across the south of England.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

The Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime Northern Ireland has helpfully drawn attention to the growing misuse of catapults. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be robust enforcement of existing law, particularly article 12 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 in respect of wild animals and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in respect of domestic animals?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for his faith in my knowledge of Northern Ireland-specific wildlife legislation—funnily enough, I am going to mention Northern Ireland in a moment. I certainly believe in robust enforcement of existing legislation, and I will come on to some practical additional measures that could be taken to rid us of this scourge.

When I visited Steve and his amazing team of volunteers at the Swan Sanctuary, I saw at first hand the horrible injuries to swans—and to all the other types of birds that the sanctuary cares for—caused by people firing at them with catapults. I said that I would look into the matter further, and have secured this debate in order to share what I have learned with the House.

In many people’s minds catapults have a sort of cheeky-chappie, comic-book image. As a boy growing up on Barnes common, I remember finding a good Y-shaped stick, making a catapult for myself and shooting at discarded Coke cans as target practice—but catapult technology has moved on from its Dennis the Menace days. The ones that can be bought now will fire a ball-bearing at 73 mps.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I recognise what the hon. and gallant Member says about the strength and power of catapults. As a police officer, probably my easiest investigation was in relation to thousands of pounds-worth of damage being caused to the plate glass windows of the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. The open window took me to the culprit, but I saw the power of that catapult to cause that level of damage. Does he agree that we need to look at how that technology has developed?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing her personal experience as a police officer to this debate. I thank her for her service.

These new catapults have awesome power, and could easily take out your eye, Sir Desmond, or indeed other hon. Members’ eyes, and cause life-changing injuries. In fact, in my time in the army, in riots in Northern Ireland, I had them used against me; they were a gateway weapon for kids who would later graduate to the coffee jar bomb and the nail bomb.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. Every one of us can remember the stick that we cut off a tree and the inner tube of a bike that we used to make the stretch, which helped us to have the best catapult in Ballywalter—there were many people in competition. However, it seems fair to say that this specific crime goes mainly unreported; there are few records of it in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that people will ignore or walk past antisocial behaviour—not just in relation to catapults, but any ASB—because of the fear of intimidation, and that more needs to be done to encourage the official reporting of all sorts of ASB, to improve conditions on our streets and to ensure that people feel safe?

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Gentleman echoes my cry. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, in all my dealings with the community, too often it becomes a conversation of the deaf, inasmuch as people think that there is no point in reporting crime because the police will not do anything about it, and the police say, “Well, no one has reported any crime, so there’s nothing for me to do.” We must unlock that conversation of the deaf by encouraging everyone to report every crime; in cases where they are worried about intimidation, they have the opportunity to use Crimestoppers, and I commend that outlet as well.

In Spelthorne, we have a serious problem with young kids using catapults on animals. I am obliged to Inspector Matthew Walton of Spelthorne police, who has helped me a great deal in preparing this campaign. The police tell me that in Spelthorne over the past year and a half crimes involving catapults have been reported to them more than once a week. The crimes happen predominantly after schools have ended, and in 90% of cases no suspect or even person of interest is identified. Spelthorne police, to their credit, tell me that they are going back to reviewing a number of these cases to make sure that they did not miss anything the first time round and to see whether any particular patterns emerge. My constituents notice the crimes happening; sadly, they too often see the wounded and killed wildlife when they are out enjoying our green spaces and river walks.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for securing this important debate. As in his constituency, significant amounts of wildlife crime are being reported by residents of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I recently met with the Save our Swans group and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The horrific events that he describes in Spelthorne are also common on the canals and rivers in Hillingdon. Does he agree that prevention is better than cure, and that taking these catapults off people before crime has happened is vital? Does he also agree that there is a role for public space protection orders, which councils can introduce, to ban the possession of catapults and other items in public spaces? Does he support me in encouraging councils to adopt those public space protection orders to prevent this crime and to make it easier for councils to pass those measures?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I believe that the Green party is led by a hypnotist; it seems that the Government Benches have a mind reader, too, because the hon. Gentleman must have seen into the future and what I was about to say.

My constituents write to me in numbers to express their distress at this scourge. Spelthorne borough council has responded and has in place a public space protection order for catapults across the whole borough. Unfortunately, though, the council will not enforce a PSPO breach if the individual is under 16. That is the council’s choice, but I would prefer it to reduce that minimum age considerably.

I went out for a ride-along with the response team of the Spelthorne police two weeks ago. We had an intelligence briefing beforehand, and what was striking was the ages of the young people we were keeping an eye out for—they were all 16 and under, and had records for some very serious offences. Catapults are predominantly kids’ stuff, by which I mean children of 10 years old and up. Currently in Spelthorne, anyone committing an offence will have their catapult seized and be issued a fine by the council, while those under 16 will have their parents informed and the catapult returned to the parent. The trouble with the current powers is that they rely on someone’s being caught offending and, as I said earlier, these crimes are rarely witnessed.

When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, we faced a lethal threat from improvised explosive devices. There was, of course, a whole raft of things that we did and drills that we learned in order to react and save life when those things when went off, but the majority of effort and ingenuity was applied to try to stop it happening in the first place—we had to do everything to the left of the bang, as the saying went. It is similar with catapults. The police would like to pre-empt this problem before it happens, and believe that reducing the minimum age of a community protection notice to 10 years would allow early intervention before bad behaviour escalates. It would also provide a proportionate civil response without criminalising children and reduce reliance on lengthy court processes.

To be clear, the process at the moment is that the police can combine the public space protection order and the community protection notice to intervene early. It is a civil offence. A community protection warning is the first step; if people do not adhere to that warning, they get a notice, and the breach of a notice itself becomes a criminal offence currently punishable by a £100 fine, although in the consideration of the Crime and Policing Bill in the other place, on the back of the former Government’s draft legislation, that is going up to £500.

I know that there is public support for an outright ban on catapults. Others want them regulated in the same way we regulate guns, or possession of them treated as we treat possession of knives. A volunteer at the Swan Sanctuary launched a public petition to make catapults illegal, which received 24,521 signatures. There is currently a live petition asking to make it an offence to carry a catapult in public without a lawful defence, which currently has more than 33,000 signatures and is live until next year.

The Government know they have a problem; I am obliged to the Minister for animal welfare, Baroness Hayman, for replying to me recently. She said that the Government feel that there is sufficient legislation on the statute book to handle the problem, but nevertheless stated:

“Having said this, I recognise the concern that the misuse of catapults is causing to communities in certain parts of the country. I attended a meeting earlier this month with the Home Office’s Minister of State and two members of parliament to discuss solutions to combatting this very issue. I am determined that with key partners, we can agree a way forward to protect our wildlife, the public and property from these appalling acts.”

I hope that what the Minister hears today can inform those considerations, and I will gladly take an intervention from either of the two mystery Back Benchers the Minister referred to in her letter, if indeed they are here today.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lincoln Jopp]

Ah! Like Hercule Poirot!

[Kevin McKenna]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I commend the hon. and gallant Member for securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and I were the two who went along to that meeting—it is disappointing that our names were not added to that letter. I would like to contribute to the debate, because this is a serious issue in my constituency, but I will save that for later; I will just say that it was us, and we are very glad to have this debate.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Another mystery cleared up by Inspector Jopp; I wish I had been as successful on my drive-around with the Spelthorne police the other day.

As well as my ask on reducing the minimum age at which protection notices can be served, I also want to put in a word for parental responsibility and alternative outlets for young people’s energy, competitiveness and desire to shoot and hit things.

I hear weekly in the Chamber how my party is responsible for running down youth services to the point of annihilation, so I want to raise the roof in relation to what happens in my constituency. On Friday night, I went to the extraordinary, world-leading Spelthorne Gymnastics. It has 1,600 students. At the European championships at Easter, Team GB took away five gold medals, and all five were won by people who came from Spelthorne Gymnastics.

In Shepperton, I also have a kids’ darts thing—if anyone is looking for a side-hustle business idea, this is the one. It is above what was probably a Conservative club before. It is a sports and social club, and on the top floor, there are five dartboards and they run two one-hour sessions. The first is for nine to 14-year-olds and the second is for 15 to 18-year-olds. There are five boards and five people per board. I was there for two hours, and I did not see a single one of those young people get a phone out once. They learn brilliant mental maths, sportsmanship, discipline, competition, mutual respect and understanding. I was absolutely blown away. When I went to my local barber the other day, the guy who runs the darts, and is one of the coaches, was coming out. He said, “Lincoln, you will not believe it. We’ve got 36 on the waiting list now.” On the night that I was there, I asked a parent who had driven their child there how far they had come, and they said from Notting Hill. For Members who do not get the geography, I am out near Heathrow airport. They said that it was the only place that does this. So all points in between—take a note of this Westminster Hall debate.

For those who want to point and shoot, we also have the Laleham archery club, which has a very good youth programme. They compete, and I had a go myself at Laleham fair. It is a lot of fun and, again, it teaches discipline—there is shooting and all of that. Of course, we then have the cadets. I am blessed with sea cadets, air cadets and Army cadets, all of which are a brilliant way of channelling young people’s energy and giving them a sense of purpose and discipline. Lastly, I will highlight my boxing club, which is predominantly staffed by volunteers. I think it has 20 boxers and another 20 on the waiting list. Its site is very cramped and they would dearly love to expand.

The combination of parental responsibility and parents just giving enough of a whatever about their young people’s wellbeing to invest in them and get them to go and do these activities—or, indeed, parents investing their time to make these things happen—is all to the good. It means that the attraction of sitting in a hedge, firing ball bearings at swans recedes into the distance.

I will end in a couple of minutes, but first I will read out some correspondence that I received earlier. The gentleman concerned is not a constituent, so I will not name where he is from, but Members will get the general picture:

“My name is Chris, and I volunteer with the”—

here he mentions the location—

“Wildlife Network. I’ve spent years on the front line—picking up bodies, comforting dying animals, and witnessing a level of cruelty that is rapidly escalating. I appreciate that my concerns have been acknowledged, but I am devastated that no action is being taken to regulate catapults.

The situation is stark. At one of my local lakes alone there were 13 catapult attacks in May, 19 in September and 7 in November. This year I have reported 54 attacks, yet only two are being investigated—even with clear video evidence”—

again, I stress that this is not in Spelthorne. He continues:

“A recent FOI request showed only 13 wildlife-crime convictions across England and Wales between 2023 and 2024. We are told the laws ‘already exist’, but these outcomes say otherwise.

Government departments continue to insist catapults are not weapons and are not used against wildlife. On the ground, we know this is simply untrue.

This is no longer just a wildlife issue. Two cats have been shot dead. A dog has lost an eye. I myself have been threatened, chased, and ignored. I have provided body-cam footage to police only to watch nothing happen. In another incident, after being repeatedly targeted with eggs, officers arrived two hours later and refused to speak to the boys responsible. The message this sends is dangerous: you can commit these acts and face no consequences.

Experts agree on the seriousness. In a BBC documentary, a ballistics specialist confirmed catapults can fire at 134 mph, and surgeons have treated people with shattered bones and life-changing injuries. These are not toys—they are weapons.

We are not asking for a ban. We are asking for basic regulation, no more extreme than requiring a fishing licence. Catapults should be classed as offensive weapons, and it should be illegal to carry them in public without lawful reason. What is extreme is the violence and impunity we are currently facing.”

While that correspondent has a different solution from the one that I am proposing, I hope that the Minister can understand the strength of feeling, both in this House and out in our constituencies. Although the Government’s position is that they consider sufficient legislation to be in place, I ask that the Minister consider our proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would reduce the minimum age from 16 to 10 years old for community protection notices.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I am imposing a formal six-minute time limit.

16:50

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

It remains a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Again, I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on bringing forward the debate. Further down the Thames from the idyllic picture that he has portrayed of his constituency of Spelthorne, my constituency sits at the mouth of the Thames, and we have all the same problems.

This is very much an issue of rural crime and animals being brutally injured and maimed. It is causing a large amount of fear, aggravation and disgust for a lot of people living in the villages around Sittingbourne and Sheerness. It is also a problem in the towns. The issue actually first came to my attention in Sittingbourne, where our local church hall was smashed up with catapults. We have had shops smashed with catapults, as well as other churches. Indeed, when we were mustering for the Remembrance parade on Remembrance Sunday this year, on the night before, we could see that a whole load of empty flats above the high street had been smashed with catapults. So it is an urban issue as well.

Some of what is driving the problem is shops that are recklessly selling catapults on the high street in town as an easy inducement for local kids to take them up, with no checks or controls over them. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, catapults can be fun. They are seen as a child’s toy, but they are not a child’s toy when what is being shot out of them are enormous, weighty ball bearings. I have held some of the ones that our local farmers have handed to me; they are bigger than the end of my thumb. Such a shot going at high velocity through an animal, or God forbid, a human skull could easily be fatal. We have to be very aware that this is not just an issue of maiming animals and property damage; at some point, this could easily become a human fatality. It is something that we really have to attend to.

From speaking to the police, I know that they have come up with similar solutions. Some police are more assertive at being able to seize catapults from children they think are offending. Where this has hit the blocks is if the person is carrying a catapult in one pocket and a shot in another. The shot can be ball bearings or even pebbles. Once they have dropped them on the ground, there is no indication that they were carrying the catapult with any form of ammunition. Also, there is a real feeling that the police do not quite have the powers needed.

I have spoken to the National Farmers Union and to ASB Help to work out some options and ways forward. I strongly congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne on bringing another option to the table. One option that I have been looking at with the NFU is simply scheduling catapults as an offensive weapon. Other options include some sort of licensing scheme, which seems rather complicated, although it might be something we need to move towards if we cannot make this work in any other way. I have talked to police on the ground, particularly those in the fantastic neighbourhood policing team that has just started in Sittingbourne, and they think that catapults being an offensive weapon will help enormously.

We really need to get to grips with this issue, so the mysterious meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and I apparently had with Ministers was really an attempt to bring the issue to the Government’s table and to make sure that its seriousness was properly assessed. Some may have seen that in the south-east of England, the BBC has done some really good investigative journalism on this issue. There have been fantastic if quite harrowing reports, with some really disturbing pictures. A lot of that had not really come to the Government’s table up to that point, so I commend the BBC team for that investigation. I am really glad that, during that discussion, Ministers told my hon. Friend and I that they would like to convene some experts around the table to look at what the best options are.

I recognise—this is important to remember—that there are legitimate uses of a catapult beyond the pages of The Beano. Anglers use catapults to fire bait into the water. Also, I had not been aware of this before, but I now know that there is competitive catapult shooting, which is absolutely fine. It is a good and laudable activity that fits very much with what was being discussed earlier in relation to the need for good options for young children to improve their motor skills and camaraderie. These are all good things. Catapults being an offensive weapon would not stop that happening, but we need to have discussions, with anglers and professional and amateur catapultists around the table, to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from any changes in the law.

This is a real problem in our towns and rural areas. It needs to be stopped before there are human fatalities. Also, the destruction of wildlife by catapults needs to be stopped immediately. I ask Ministers to update us on the plans to review this issue and to bring experts together. Like all the hon. Members attending this debate, I would very much like to be part of that.

16:56

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and my constituency neighbour, for securing this important debate. Without it, I doubt that I would have the chance to raise in Parliament an issue that is extremely important to my constituents in Windsor, Eton, Datchet, Horton, Old Windsor and Wraysbury, where his constituency and mine border each another. In particular, I will focus on a recent series of heinous offences that has touched many of my constituents—that is, I am afraid to say, the callous murder of swans with high-velocity catapults.

Swans are an iconic symbol of Windsor and of this country. They are the king’s birds. The yearly tradition of swan upping is a great community event, with all the mute swans along the Thames being counted and given a health check. As such, swans are treated with reverence—like royalty—in my community and across this country. I have visited local swan charities and seen the work that they do to nurse swans back to full health and get these beautiful animals back in the water, where they should be. That is what creates such affection between these animals and our community.

Having met the brilliant Wendy Hermon at Swan Support, an outstanding local charity, I have seen at first hand just how much she cares for swans and other precious Thames wildlife. Unfortunately, during my recent visit, Wendy had to detail to me the most recent horrific slaughter in Old Windsor of a proud male swan affectionately named Pete, who had a mate and multiple cygnets, which, sadly, have now been left behind. Having seen these birds up close, we all know that swans are truly magnificent animals, and to see images of them floating dead on the water provokes a feeling of real sadness and, frankly, outrage. Why anybody would do such a thing is beyond me. It is completely unnecessary, and it is barbarous.

I also have fears about the individuals who carry out such acts, presumably in a group setting, egging one another on, and presumably for the benefit of social media. Where does that antisocial urge end, and what could it possibly escalate to? Recently, a cat was killed in Datchet. We need to nip this in the bud before it becomes people next.

Back in April, we had a really productive meeting. It was called by Swan Support and hosted by Eton town council. We were joined by the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, the King’s swan upper, Eton town councillors and a local royal borough councillor. We concluded at the time that the royal borough should introduce a public space protection order, which would give the police the power to challenge people, issue a fine and seize catapults, in the right instances. We thought that that was the best way forward.

However, I am sorry to say that in the following five months it seems like little progress has been made. That is typical in the royal borough for something not involving Maidenhead. Runnymede borough council has been receptive and is cracking on, and I know that Spelthorne borough council, in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne, has already been successful.

I am, however, glad to say that after the excellent work of Wendy at Swan Support, and others pushing the royal borough, the consultation on a PSPO banning the carrying of catapults in Windsor, Eton, Old Windsor, Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury has finally opened. I urge as many of my constituents as possible to respond to it on the RBWM Together website. I hope to see the ban introduced after the consultation ends on 8 January.

As it stands, a police officer could see a group of youths—I am afraid to say that in my constituency it is often youths from the Traveller community—walking around the town with catapults, clearly not using them for fishing bait, and yet be pretty powerless to confiscate them. That must change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what more can be done to cut down on antisocial behaviour and the misuse of catapults, so that my constituents can have peace of mind and our swans can be protected. I hope she will join me in urging the royal borough to do the right thing and introduce the PSPO.

17:01

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this very important debate, on his eloquent speech setting out the dimensions of the problem, and on his incredible detective work to out the mystery participants in the Home Office meeting of a month ago—well done on that. However, to be serious, shocking incidents involving catapults, of the sort that he outlined and we have all seen, have been on the rise in my constituency.

Just over a year ago, I began to receive reports of catapults being used at Darenth Village Park, with both wildlife and property targeted, which I passed on to the police. Early this year, I received worried emails and Facebook posts from people living around St Clements Lakes in Greenhithe reporting numerous incidents of catapult use to hurt or kill birds at the lake. In March, I undertook a walkabout around the area with local police, who told me that they knew where this was taking place but felt they lacked the necessary powers to tackle it properly. The situation escalated further, with a disturbing incident in which a woman and her young children were threatened with catapults after challenging a group of teenagers targeting wildlife at the lakes—there was widespread local media coverage of the incident.

I have also seen—I would not recommend that anyone looks them up—videos taken from TikTok showing predominantly young men, sometimes being encouraged by older men, using catapults to kill wildlife, birds, rabbits and squirrels. The videos are then posted on social media. There is clearly a disturbing trend of growing cruelty towards defenceless wildlife, and sometimes there is a link to social media.

As other Members have said, make no mistake that people are at risk too. King’s College hospital maxillofacial surgeon, Jonas Osher, said that he has recently treated serious injuries to patients inflicted by catapults. He sees catapult victims who have lost their vision as a result of a projectile lodging in their eye socket, and says that

“if you’re unlucky, it could hit you in the thinnest part of your skull…and cause a brain haemorrhage.”

Recognising the problem, I applaud the initiative taken by Kent police over the summer to send a letter to schools across Kent asking them to work with parents to stop their children leaving home with a catapult, but that is not enough. Through my work on this issue, I have had a chance to meet Carly Ahlen, a local wildlife expert, and her fellow campaigners Christopher and Joelle, who shared evidence they have collated on how widespread the issue is. I am grateful to them for their tenacious work cataloguing incidents and patrolling parks to try to deter them.

I recently organised a local residents’ meeting to discuss policing in Darenth—a general meeting to discuss anything that residents were concerned about. They reported their increasing fear of catapult crime specifically, including damage to cars and other property, and worry that they personally would be hit by a projectile.

I hope that on the strength of the mounting evidence that catapult use is a serious risk in Dartford and many other communities in different parts of the country, the Home Office will look carefully at opportunities to strengthen the ability of police to confiscate catapults, in particular from under-18s. The suggestion that catapults should be added to the list of offensive weapons is sensible, because it would enable police to do that while ensuring that the small number of legitimate uses—such as in the sport of angling and recreational use—are protected.

I thank the Minister for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) earlier in the autumn to discuss the issue. I am sure that she will have noted the concern expressed in this debate from across the country—from Northern Ireland, Scotland, London and the south-east, including Kent, Surrey and Hampshire—and the reports of similar problems in Warwickshire. Let us take forward the action we need to address this rising source of cruelty and fear in our communities.

17:05

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

I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate. As many Members present will attest, there appears to be a rising use of catapults, as well as an increase in antisocial behaviour more broadly, especially in areas with large bodies of water but also in towns and cities.

Since the election last year, I too have heard sickening reports of catapults being used to fire metal ball bearings in attempts to kill or injure wildfowl and other birds in our local communities. Videos of such acts tend to end up on social media and spread quickly. The footage is deeply disturbing to anyone decent and respectful of our natural environment and wildlife. The consequences are felt acutely by organisations such as Brent Lodge wildlife hospital in my constituency. During a visit earlier this year, the people there told me that they are treating an increasing number of birds injured by solid projectiles.

Those acts fundamentally represent wider societal failings. We must do more to educate children and their caregivers so that they understand that this behaviour is completely unacceptable. It is especially pertinent—this was alluded to by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) —given the known link between those who injure animals and those who go on to think it is acceptable to injure humans. Societal investment in addressing such behaviours as early as possible would prevent further harm in the future.

With social media a prevalent way of young people engaging with society, it does not take long for a trend to catch on, and injuring wildlife is one of the more appalling recent trends to have spread quickly. Brent Lodge hired an outreach officer who has been spending time going to schools and talking about wildlife crime to educate and inform, and I applaud those efforts. An X-ray of the brain of a swan that has been hit repeatedly by an air gun is not an image that a young person who is shown it will be quick to forget.

A concern expressed repeatedly by those who write to me is the feeling that, despite reporting such acts to the police, nothing will happen—certainly no form of punishment or intervention by the schools, even when the local community could identify the people who carried out the crime. Their experiences reflect a troubling national picture: just 6% of crimes reported to the police lead to a suspect being charged, and 6,000 cases per day are closed without a suspect being identified.

Responsibility for those statistics lies firmly with the previous Government, who in the decade prior to this Parliament hollowed out our local police forces. Since 2015, the number of police community support officers has fallen by more than 4,500, leaving our local police forces with a near impossible task. In particular in rural communities, where officers must cover huge areas, the police are overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect our communities the most. The lack of visibility is clear, because individuals engaging in criminal and antisocial behaviour feel emboldened to continue when no one is following it up, even when they are caught in the act.

Beyond the barbaric use of catapults, I have received further complaints from constituents about individuals climbing public buildings, threatening and abusive behaviour in our high streets, and the dangerous riding of high-speed e-bikes. There is also a persistent issue in constituencies such as mine with specific rural crimes such as hare coursing and theft of farm equipment. Those who contact me about those crimes say, again, that their faith in the police to address them is low, but they understand that the pressures on the police are such that they are going to the most serious cases, and often a farmer reporting people in their field chasing hares fundamentally is not understood at a police call centre.

Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and walking down their own streets, and that applies to the wildlife that we live with as well. Everyone deserves to feel that their property is protected and that if someone tries to take it, a real effort will be made to recover it. However, for too many people in the UK today, that is simply not the reality. The Government must take urgent action to address that—first, by reversing the trend of decreasing numbers of PCSOs and special constables, and ensuring that forces have the resources to deal with the issues that society is facing.

The Liberal Democrats are also calling for the creation of a national online crime agency to tackle online fraud and abuse, which would free up local police officers to spend more time doing the thing that they want to do and is why they joined the police in the first place: community policing. They would be able to spend more time dealing with burglaries, neighbourhood crime and antisocial behaviour such as that we have discussed today.

We also need a renewed commitment to tackling the declining number of police desks, which dropped by 25% between 2015 and 2025. That has contributed significantly to the sense of police disappearing from our streets. We would ensure that police desks were placed in community hubs, including libraries and shopping centres. What steps are the Government taking to provide specific support for police forces such as mine to deal with rising antisocial behaviour and the use of catapults against wildlife, and what are they doing to reverse the trend of declining numbers of PCSOs and police desks in communities, which would ensure that a visible police presence returned to our rural constituencies?

17:11

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on arranging this debate. He is a tireless champion for his constituents. I can testify to his enthusiasm for Spelthorne Gymnastics, as he shared with us all some videos of his visit, of which my only criticism was that he was not in formation in them, which is something I expect to be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

Law and order is the bedrock of a strong society, but the laws we make in this House are meaningful only when they are enforced. In too many areas, there is a troubling gap between the rules on paper and the reality of people’s lives. When it comes to catapults, we have the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, all of which authorise meaningful powers for police officers to stop this sort of behaviour, but many people feel that those powers are not being used effectively, and too often they are right.

We have heard this afternoon too many examples from my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Windsor (Jack Rankin), and from my county neighbours, the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson). If they would like us, as a cross-party group, to discuss this issue with Kent police, I would be very keen to join them.

I know the issue too well from reports of catapult-related crimes in my own constituency. In Marden, criminals have killed wildlife. In Staplehurst, bus windows have been smashed and passengers injured by flying glass. In Tenterden, a kitchen window was shattered by a catapulted marble. In Cranbrook, Woodpeckers Preschool suffered three smashed windows overnight. This sort of behaviour is horrible for those subjected to it, and it must not go unchallenged. It erodes trust in the state and contributes to a sense that our country is becoming more lawless and disorderly.

Early responses to my ongoing constituency crime survey show that of those who say they have been a victim of crime, roughly two in three did not report it, because they felt that would not lead to any action. Our constituents do not want to live in a society in which someone can smash a pre-school window or kill a theoretically protected animal with a catapult and simply get away with it. Catapults themselves are not new, but as we have heard this afternoon, the scale and brazenness of their misuse are. In Kent, for example, police believe that slingshot usage has risen by more than 40% in just two years. For too many people, antisocial behaviour is becoming the background noise of everyday life, creating a creeping sense that our public spaces are not safe or respected.

We must be honest about what this behaviour means in practice. It is criminal damage, intimidation and harassment, and, far too often, cruelty to wildlife. As several hon. Members have said, it could easily also become assault or bodily harm. On paper, these offences carry serious penalties, but our legislation is only as strong as our willingness and ability to enforce it. At the very least, the Government must ensure that our current laws are being properly enforced before looking to make new ones.

Sadly, under this Government, police numbers have been falling. There has been a decline of more than 1,300 officers in a single year. Recruitment is down by 17%. Rising costs from recent Budgets, particularly changes to employer’s national insurance contributions, have created millions in unplanned pressure for policing. What is the Minister’s plan to increase recruitment and retention of police officers? Will she set out the assessment the Home Office has made of the impact of the national insurance changes on policing capacity?

This October, the Opposition put forward a plan to tackle those sorts of crimes. We would recruit 10,000 additional police officers, backed by £800 million of funding, and would triple the use of stop and search, returning it to 2008 levels and giving officers the backing they need to take weapons and dangerous items off our streets. Will the Minister adopt our plan for 10,000 new officers and 2,000 in hotspot patrol areas? Will she confirm that the Government will give the police the powers and political backing they need to enforce the laws Parliament has passed, including through greater use of stop and search? Our public safety depends not only on the passing of Bills in this House, but on our ability to enforce our laws consistently and effectively.

17:16

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate.

There is clearly a problem. It is not my job to defend the status quo; it is my job to consider what we can do about the problem. This debate has brought forward that problem in a good-natured way, setting out a number of ideas, which we can talk through today but need more thought. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), referred to existing laws, and the need to look at how they are implemented. Other suggestions, from this place and beyond, may also help. The starting point is that there is clearly a problem. Although the national data is not great on this subject, it appears to be a rising problem, as borne out by the Kent statistics.

I will say a couple of things about the broad approach to governing. Most of the public want police in their neighbourhoods, with the time and space to tackle physical crimes. The Government are working on a White Paper on police reform, which we hope will do exactly that. We are not only putting in more money—already bearing fruit in funding neighbourhood police in local communities—but looking at the time police spend on bureaucracy. Artificial intelligence can help to free up time, with new technology such as live facial recognition or drones playing a role, to enable the police to do what we want them to do.

We are also spending a lot of time on outlining plans for a national centre for policing, which could do what the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) suggested: bring together national aspects of policing, so that local police can deal with the problems that face them. The hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne also talked at some length about the good youth engagement activities in his constituency, and pointed out the cuts to youth work. I think we would all agree that policing is one thing, but activities are very much another. We have a brilliant ambition for a 30% increase in the number of cadets by 2030, which would ensure that people are gaining skills, learning about being a good citizen and occupying their free time. Hon. Members will have examples of great youth clubs and sports groups, which we want to support where we can. Those are the two principles that I would start with.

The hon. and gallant Member described very vividly some of the injuries to wildlife, which are very upsetting. Concerns were also expressed about where that violence would escalate to over time. Something that is increasingly taking up Government time is thinking about people who are obsessed with violence. Where does it come from? How do we stem it? I suspect that people who are attacking wildlife are on some path that we would want to stop. Interventions at that point are necessary, too.

The hon. and gallant Member set out his arguments and made a very compelling case that we need to take this issue seriously. I was in a meeting just before the debate, and I said to those I was meeting that I was coming to this debate, and they said, “Oh, Dennis the Menace!” The hon. and gallant Member made exactly the same point. This is how people perceive catapults; that is not the nature of what is happening here. The letter he read out paints that picture very clearly.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who I was pleased to meet recently, made very good points about the challenges in their communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey talked about the urban nature of this problem, and the churches and high streets that have been damaged. This is clearly a problem that is affecting a number of areas. We heard that from Northern Ireland as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford talked about TikTok and the role of social media, and this strange new habit that seems to be to commit these violent offences and put them on social media, which is obviously also very worrying.

In terms of what the Government want to do in response, as I set out, reforming our police so that our police can do what we want them to do and they can implement the legislation that is already there because they have more time is a major priority. That is, in part, about funding neighbourhood police and making sure that we tilt resources in that direction. It is also about freeing up people’s time, so they can get on and do what they need to do.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, made the sensible point that there is no point in having legislation just for the sake of it, but there are some changes that we do want to see. As we heard, Spelthorne borough council has a PSPO that includes catapults. That is a really good thing. The Crime and Policing Bill will increase the upper limit on fixed penalty notices for breaches of PSPOs to £500, which gives some more power to that function. People have mixed views about PSPOs—some work; some do not—but making sure that they have teeth is important.

Tackling antisocial behaviour generally is a big priority for this Government, and we are doing that in a number of ways, one of which is being much more savvy when it comes to data—looking at hotspot policing and targeting policing in the areas where crime occurs the most. For that to work, we have to have people reporting crime. So please can the message to all our constituents be: “Do report any crime you see; report it online if that is easier.” We are being increasingly sophisticated in the way that we are responding to crime, and data drives that. If we do not have the data, it makes it harder.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The Minister raises a really important point about data. I say the same whenever I am out in my constituency doing Q&As—report, report, report—but there is always a reticence from my constituents, who say that they feel like they are reporting all the time, then they never hear back from the police and they are not sure where the information goes. Also, when they are talking about antisocial behaviour, there is always a concern that it is going to come back on them and they will be identified as the people who are actively reporting these crimes. Can the Minister provide any advice for those constituents who feel anxious about consistently reporting and feel like they are being a burden or a nuisance?

[Sarah Jones]

They are very much not a burden or a nuisance; they are doing their civic duty, for which we are very grateful, and we encourage them to continue to do so. Reporting is absolutely key. I have had similar conversations to the ones that she and, I suspect, all of us have had, particularly when things have gone on for a very long time and people feel there is no point in reporting any more. We now have in each neighbourhood a named officer, who is your person, and you can contact that person. That will hopefully make it a bit easier for people to get in touch.

Crime can be reported online. We would not always want people to ring 999; there are lots of different ways to report crime. As we go on, there need to be better ways to do it. We need to have apps and technology that help people to do things simply when they are reporting, for example, repeat behaviour. Even though it is difficult, and I understand the case made by the hon. Lady in terms of people feeling nervous, the best result is for the people who are committing the crime to be stopped, and they will not be stopped unless the police are there to intervene.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the Minister and conscious of time. Does she agree that, when people are concerned about intimidation and identification, they can ring Crimestoppers anonymously and report in that way?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. and gallant Member is absolutely right; people can, and I would encourage them to do that.

Respect orders are part of the legislation that we are bringing in. We do not have time to get into this because I want to let the hon. and gallant Member wind up at the end, but respect orders will have a place in terms of repeat antisocial behaviour offenders. We will introduce them in the Bill, pilot them and roll them out. It will be a tougher measure in terms of tackling antisocial behaviour more widely.

On the hon. and gallant Member’s point about whether we should expand the age group eligible for community protection notices, he said that it was a way of intervening without criminalising children, but he also said that, if they breach it, they are then criminalised. The question is: what is the most effective way to get people out of that kind of behaviour? Is it to criminalise them at that point, or is it to intervene in ways that might be more effective, as he said in other parts of his speech?

Of course there need to be consequences, and there is the issue of whether we should list this as a banned weapon. We looked in our meeting at the list of weapons that are banned, and there is a strange mix of slightly peculiar weapons that clearly have been an issue at some points in time. It is an interesting list for people to look at. That is one aspect, but as a Minister who has been in post for less than 100 days, I want to look at this issue more. There is clearly a problem, and we need to consider how we tackle it.

Thames Valley police were mentioned by name. I was with Thames Valley police recently, and they have massively reduced hare coursing through the use of really effective policing. They are using gators—these vehicles that zoom around the country—and drones to see where the hare coursing happens and get there, so I can reassure people that, when the police put their mind to it, they can do incredible things, despite the challenges. I am therefore optimistic that we can tackle this problem together.

17:28

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am very grateful to all the hon. Members who have attended this debate and the public officials who have recorded our deliberations. I heard from the Minister that there is broad consensus on the fact that there is a problem, and that early intervention is better than picking up the pieces. I have made my point about extending the age group eligible for community protection notices, and hope that, in the Minister’s wider considerations, she can give a second thought to that before the Crime and Policing Bill continues its progress through the House of Lords.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of catapults and anti-social behaviour.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.