House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. Shipley will benefit from the £1.5 million allocated to Bradford through the Pride in Place impact fund. The Department has asked local authorities to engage with their local MP and a wider range of local stakeholders to shape delivery of the fund, and to report on that engagement.
Anna Dixon
A happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s £1.5 million impact fund for Bradford is critical to communities that have been overlooked for too long. I recently visited Windhill recreation ground in my local area, which is set to benefit from Pride in Place funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that after 14 years of brutal cuts to northern councils such as Bradford, this Labour Government are providing our local areas and communities with the investment they need?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for her constituents, which I saw for myself when I visited her constituency during the general election. She is right, of course: this funding is going to hundreds of areas that were the most left behind by the previous Government, so that they can take decisions about what to invest in and put pride back at the heart of the communities that the people there belong to and love.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
We are providing £3.6 billion of funding over the next three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, including £11 million for Newcastle through the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant. Councils can use that funding flexibly to meet the needs of women in their area, which is vital given that, recently, 40% of homeless households were single women or women with children.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the increased investment in tackling homelessness in Newcastle, which is transforming lives. Homeless women are both more vulnerable and less visible. The Women’s Homelessness Alliance North East showed recently just how serious a problem this is. Through a proactive and concentrated survey, it identified 144 women sleeping rough—far more than councils were aware of at the time. Without accurate data, it is hard to plan effective support, leaving women at greater risk. What are the Government doing specifically to ensure that women’s homelessness is better measured, monitored and dealt with?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes the case for women’s homelessness and rough sleeping to be better understood. To improve evidence, we added an indicator on gender to the monthly rough sleeping survey, which we published in February 2026, but I encourage all local authorities to listen to the question that she just asked, to consider taking part in the women’s rough sleeping census and to understand that domestic abuse is the third biggest reason for homelessness. We need to act on this issue.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. To that end, we have begun the implementation of Awaab’s law, introduced a new, modernised decent homes standard, updated minimum energy efficiency standards and directed the Regulator of Social Housing to set new standards relating to the competence and conduct of social housing staff.
Mary Kelly Foy
In October 2022, a constituent of mine moved into a social housing property and immediately faced issues with extreme cold and damp. The issues went unresolved for so long that he referred his complaints to the Housing Ombudsman in April 2025, but it took until February this year for investigations to begin. Like everyone, my constituent simply wants a dignified life in a safe, comfortable property that he can be proud to call home. What are the Government doing to ensure that housing associations are meeting their requirements under Awaab’s law and that they have the resources to do so?
Matthew Pennycook
I am very sorry to learn of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. All housing association homes must be free from dangerous damp and mould. I note that her case arose before we brought the first phase of Awaab’s law into force on 27 October last year; now that we have done so, all social landlords are required to repair emergency hazards within 24 hours and to deal with dangerous damp and mould within fixed timescales.
Sarah Pochin
In my Runcorn and Helsby constituency, Riverside housing association is flattening 365 properties, demolishing them to build new homes. Residents have been left with no communication, no support and no number to ring—residents such as John and Barbara Wheldon, now in their 80s, who have lived in the same property for more than 50 years and are facing the trauma of that move without knowing where they are going. Will the Minister agree with me that housing associations have a duty of care to residents and that, where they fail in that duty of care, they should be held to account?
Matthew Pennycook
Social landlords are held to regulatory standards that are overseen by the regulator. I am sorry to hear about the experience of John and Barbara and others. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with details about the case, I will happily look into it.
Chris Hinchliff
More social housing is essential but, as Members across the House will know, increasingly distant housing associations are often far too quick to put up fees and far too slow to tackle damp, mould and disrepair. What more will the Minister do to ensure that future public funding comes with clear strings attached to require better standards for our constituents?
Matthew Pennycook
Registered providers of social housing, whoever they are, must address non-decency wherever it exists and must do so in a timely and professional manner. Where there are concerns that an RP is not delivering against the required regulatory standards, as I just mentioned, referrals can be made to the regulator, and the regulator has robust enforcement powers that allow it to take effective action when serious failings are identified.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Housing, including damp and mould, is a top issue in my inbox as MP for Woking. One of the key problems is the Conservatives’ unlawful removal of more than £4 million from the housing revenue account, which has resulted in a huge backlog of issues. What steps are this Government and this Minister taking to ensure that that does not happen again to add further woes to our social housing stock?
Matthew Pennycook
We are taking a number of steps to assist local authorities whose HRAs are under pressure, including the rent convergence introduction, which I know the hon. Gentleman is aware of, and all the other regulatory certainty and stability that allows local authorities, as well as housing associations, to plan for the future and invest in their existing stock, as well as building new social and affordable homes.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I was delighted to confirm up to £20 million for central Luton as part of the expanded Pride in Place programme. The funding will give the community the resources and the power they need to drive transformational local change that will bring people together and restore a sense of pride in the area.
Rachel Hopkins
May I take a moment to congratulate Luton Town on winning the English Football League trophy yesterday at Wembley? I very much welcome the £20 million Pride in Place funding for central Luton, which will help to restore pride in our local neighbourhoods after they were left behind for so many years under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that decisions on how to use that investment to regenerate central Luton will be made by the community, for the community and to connect the community?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the most exciting things about Pride in Place is that the community themselves take the decisions about how the money should be spent. Of course that is the right thing to do, because they know best what needs to change to put pride back at the heart of their communities.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Any form of coercion at the polling booth is unacceptable and undermines confidence in our democratic process, as the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 makes clear. The Government will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission and administrators to ensure that polling station staff are confident in challenging those offences.
Gregory Stafford
While Greater Manchester police has stated that there was no evidence of family voting in a recent by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported witnessing “concerningly high levels” of such activity on polling day. How does the Minister reconcile these conflicting accounts, and can she clarify how Greater Manchester police conducted that assessment, and particularly whether witness statements from the observers were taken into account?
Samantha Dixon
Greater Manchester police has completed its investigation and found no evidence of family voting. I thank the police for their careful and diligent work investigating this matter, as well as the Electoral Commission and the local returning officer for their support. As I said before, coercion in the polling station and other types of electoral offences are unacceptable and undermine confidence in our democratic system.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Easter. Family voting is just one example of unfair voting practices that seek to skew elections and exploit those isolated from wider British society. Another example of these divisive tactics was a disgraceful Green leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election, written in Urdu, saying:
“Labour must be punished for Gaza… Give the Muslims a voice. Vote Green.”
If the Minister agrees that this is divisive language, will she back our amendment to allow election literature in a short campaign to be printed only in an official British language?
Samantha Dixon
We will continue to work through the Representation of the People Bill in Committee, through line-by-line scrutiny. I look forward to continuing that work with the hon. Gentleman, and we will discuss that then.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
On 19 March, we published a full impact assessment for the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are also consulting on precisely how to introduce a ban on the use of leasehold for new flats, including in respect of issues such as scope, transitional arrangements and exemptions.
Blake Stephenson
Wixams retirement village in Mid Bedfordshire is a wonderful, integrated retirement community, but I understand from the sector and the industry that that business model is under threat from the Government’s leasehold reforms. Given the important role that these communities can play in reducing social care costs for our local authorities, and the fantastic option they represent for older constituents, will the Minister commit to look again at the specific impacts of leasehold reform on the integrated retirement sector, particularly to give stability and predictability to investors so that they can invest in future schemes?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-judged question. Let me reassure him that the Government understand the distinct operational and financial models that underpin specialist retirement housing, and that we recognise the important role that integrated retirement community operators play in providing high-quality housing for older people. As he is hopefully aware, the way in which the retirement housing sector functions in a world in which commonhold is the default tenure, and whether some kind of exemption is required, are among the many questions we are seeking feedback on in our consultation on moving to commonhold and banning leasehold for new flats. I encourage him and any operators in his constituency to engage with that consultation.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his work on this issue. I am working to make sure that the managing agent Freshwater will meet me to talk about its service charges. Does he agree that it is important that managing agents meet representatives in order to tackle these high levels, and to ensure that they are prepared for this Government’s reforms? I also have a real concern about the impact of high service charges on the long-term sustainability of the leasehold model for people who are choosing to retire into leasehold properties.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. High and rising service charges are putting unprecedented financial pressure on leaseholders. They are also causing more and more issues with mortgages and remortgaging processes. On her point about managing agents: yes, managing agents absolutely should meet with residents who have concerns, either collectively or individually.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government appreciate fully the long-standing concern among park home residents about the requirement to pay site owners a commission upon the sale of a park home. On 5 March, we published a call for evidence in relation to the said commission payments so that we will have the information necessary to act and provide the clarity and certainty that park home residents and site owners have rightly been demanding.
David Chadwick
Park home residents in Brecon and Radnor, and indeed across the entire country, describe the 10% sales commission as a deeply unfair hit on their life savings, often amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. With the Government’s call for evidence now under way, what assessment has the Minister made of whether this charge is fair and whether residents are receiving value for money?
Matthew Pennycook
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to secure change in relation to this matter, and I can assure him that I share his eagerness to proceed quickly. Unfortunately, the research undertaken by the previous Government was not conclusive as to either the purpose of the commission or the impact of its removal or reduction. The final report recommended further work to clarify the rationale of the commission so that the Government can make informed policy choices, hence the call for evidence, which I hope he and park home owners in his constituency are engaging with.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s new call for evidence. Perhaps unsurprisingly, park home owners across South Dorset continue to be deeply frustrated with the unfair 10% sales commission slapped on all park homes. The current system feels unfair as it punishes one group disproportionately. With that in mind, will the Minister ensure that park home owners are not forgotten and finally end this unfair 10% sales commission charge, and ensure that these reforms sit alongside wider reforms to leasehold?
Matthew Pennycook
I again emphasise that I appreciate the frustration among park home owners. Unfortunately, we do not have the evidential basis that we need to act. We will need to make a decision on the basis of evidence gathered through the call for evidence that is taking place, and then take into account the impact on park homes of all sizes to ensure fairness and transparency, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we will act once we have the information and evidence that we seek.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Because of the inconsistent and disproportionate practices observed, the Government have consulted on modernising and improving the administration of council tax, including its collection, and we will publish our response shortly.
Mr Charters
Working with the charity StepChange, we have seen that some councils are too often moving too quickly towards bailiff enforcement action. Would the Minister consider issuing best practice to councils to ensure that vulnerable households are supported instead of too often being pushed into further financial misery by overly aggressive enforcement action?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue on the Floor of the House and thank StepChange, through him, for its work. As I mentioned, we will have more to say in this area shortly, but as he will know, the Ministry of Justice is also involved in the issues that he mentioned, so I will work with Ministers in that Department, too.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Council tax is widely acknowledged to be a deeply regressive and unfair tax based on property values that are decades out of date, and the poorest households pay a much larger proportion of their income in council tax than the wealthiest. Rather than consulting just on better ways to collect it, will the Minister instead commit to review and replace this outdated and unfair tax with a system of taxation that is fairer and based on property values?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I have said, we will have more to say on this shortly, but when it comes to fairness, she will know that the Chancellor introduced a new charge for the highest-value properties, showing that this Labour Government are prepared to act when it comes to fairness.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Maximising rises in council tax underpins this Government’s entire approach to council finance. The Minister has admitted that no assessment has been done of the impact that this has on the cost of living for British households. As the Government send in the bailiffs to support their council tax maximisation strategy, will she assure the House that the Prime Minister has considered the impact of these huge council tax rises on working households?
Alison McGovern
I think that is a little bit rich given what we all lived through over the past 14 years. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, on average, Tory councils cost people more. I know that the best way we will ensure that council finances recover from the period of Tory austerity is to improve services, stop paying the cost of failure and help deal with the cost of living crisis.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Can I first say what a pleasure it was to join my hon. Friend on a visit to the new Pride in Place area at Enfield Wash during the Easter recess? Many places in phase 1 of the programme that have already announced their spending intentions have selected community spaces as what they will spend their money on. That is no wonder because community spaces are where communities can come together and take action and give their community the voice they need to articulate their aspirations for the future.
Feryal Clark
I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Enfield Wash in my constituency last week. After 14 years of Conservative cuts, Enfield lost around 60% of its funding, hitting vital services such as adult social care, youth services and our high street. Despite the cuts, Enfield Labour council has worked tirelessly to protect residents and support the most vulnerable. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and our brilliant Labour council leader Ergin Erbil—
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that we are into an election period, but we will have to shorten questions if other Members are to get in. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree.
Steve Reed
I always agree with you, Mr Speaker.
Fair funding will provide a significant increase for Enfield council, in line with deprivation levels. The additional Pride in Place funding for two of the most held-back areas will allow them to take control of their own futures.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
In the Staffordshire county council area we have amazing community spaces, but they would benefit from additional investment, and Pride in Place would have been a great way to allocate it. Sadly, none of the local authorities in that county council area is eligible for Pride in Place, and the result feels a little like gerrymandering, but I am sure that that is not the case. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking afresh at whether there is any opportunity for Staffordshire not to be forgotten by this Government?
Steve Reed
Through fair funding, Labour is ensuring that funding goes where deprivation is highest. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), stood up in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells and boasted about how the Conservatives were taking money away from deprived areas to use it for what I can only assume was gerrymandering.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Pride in Place funding in Dudley is being divided between two constituencies, risking the dilution of its impact. Given the high levels of deprivation among many of my constituents, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that communities in Dudley fully feel the transformational benefits of the investment and see tangible improvements? Will he meet me to discuss how we can crowd in funding?
Steve Reed
Of course, the most exciting thing about Pride in Place is that communities themselves, rather than politicians, make the decisions about how the money is spent. They will come together, from across the area that is benefiting from the funding, to decide what they want to do to put pride back into a place that had pride ripped out of its heart by the Conservatives.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
There are real concerns that Pride in Place is just another example of this Government’s blind spot on rural areas. Groups such as the Rural Services Network and Plunkett UK warn that villages are being left behind. Key rural assets are disappearing fast, and Plunkett is calling for a targeted £10 million rural community ownership fund to help. What are the Government doing to ensure that rural communities are not left out again?
Steve Reed
Of course, the funding was distributed according to data provided by the indices of multiple deprivation, so it is going to the most deprived areas, wherever they may lie in the country—be it in urban or rural areas. The fair funding review also ensured that funding targeted the areas that needed it most and were most deprived of it by the previous Government. It included a measure on rurality to ensure that rural areas get their fair share.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Responsibility for developing a registration scheme for short-term lets in England lies with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is building a simple and easy-to-use registration scheme for short-term lets, informed by ongoing stakeholder feedback and consultation. The scheme entered user testing in October, ahead of its planned launch this year.
Rachael Maskell
The scale of short-term holiday lets in York continues to heighten our significant housing challenges and affect our public services and the economy, while residents have to put up with antisocial behaviour on their doorsteps. That registration scheme will be helpful—it would be good to know when it will be introduced—but will the Minister commit to working with MPs who deal with the significant challenge of Airbnbs in rural, coastal and urban communities, and embark on a consultation for licensing in the next parliamentary Session?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the acute pressures that my hon. Friend faces in her constituency as a result of an excessive concentration of short-term lets. She and I met only recently to discuss that matter, but I will happily continue to engage on it with any hon. Member from across the House. As she knows, the Government appreciate that the excessive concentration of short-term lets can impact on the availability and affordability of homes, both to rent and to buy, and we continue to consider what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by such concentrations.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
In rural and coastal communities, hospitality is already under massive pressure thanks to the tax rises, regulatory impacts and other negative impositions of this Government. May I urge Ministers to ensure that if we are to bring in a registration scheme, we gather the data and do not move in too heavy-handedly, because we risk further damage to a hospitality sector that does not need it? We need to establish the data and find out whether further action is required.
Matthew Pennycook
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with digital delivery experts to ensure that the registration service is robust, secure and simple to use, minimising the impact on businesses for precisely the reasons he gave.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that Cornwall has the second highest number of short-term lets in the country, after London. I understand that DCMS has responsibility for the scheme, but will the Minister discuss with his opposite number in DCMS the possibility of uploading things such as fire and safety certificates and checks to the register, so that it is not just a simple light-touch registration scheme in the future, if not during this round?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said, we know that excessive concentrations of short-term lets affect urban and rural constituencies, and that coastal communities in particular are feeling the acute pressures that result from them. I am more than happy to engage with my counterpart in DCMS, as I do already, and to raise the specific points made by my hon. Friend.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Minister look at closing the loophole that allows second-home owners—people who are well-off enough to afford more than one home—to dodge paying any council tax whatsoever by letting their property as a short-term let for up to 72 days per year? Not only do they pay no council tax, but because they are a small business, they pay no business rates either. Thousands of my constituents are working their socks off to pay the council tax to subsidise people like that. That is wrong, isn’t it? Will he also bring in a separate category of planning use to make short-term lets easier to control?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is well aware of what we have already done on furnished lettings exemption. We look at taxation in this regard and keep it under constant review. We have had a long discussion on this issue over many years, but I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
In December, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published the national youth strategy, our 10-year plan to ensure that young people can access the services and opportunities they need to thrive, and I speak regularly to local leaders about this work. The local government finance settlement makes available £78 billion for English councils this year, most of which is not ringfenced, giving councils the flexibility to meet local needs, including for youth services.
Jon Trickett
I thank the Minister for her response. In the austerity years, over £1 billion was taken out of youth services by the previous Government—that was shameful and damaging to the social fabric. The Minister has already indicated that we are beginning to tackle that legacy, but in mining communities, where villages are remote and there are no bus services readily available in the evening, young people are being left behind. Is there more we can do to help those mining villages? Will she also reflect on the availability of the youth centre in Upton in my constituency, which has been closed since the Tories were in office but might be used as a youth hub?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend reminds us of the damage that was done, particularly to those least able to bear it. I am pleased that spending power for Wakefield has increased by just shy of 27% since Labour came to office, so when it comes to the youth centre in Upton, I hope that there are more options available for Wakefield than there once were. I am happy to work with him on that.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
There is a direct link between youth services and housing in communities. In fact, it has been shown that once we invest in our youth services, there is reduced homelessness and fewer young people in temporary accommodation. However, the cut in real terms—close to £1 billion—means that the whole sector has been decimated. Does the Minister agree with me that when we lose our youth services and our centres, our whole community suffers? How are this Government going to make youth working a viable career going forward?
Alison McGovern
Sadly, we all know only too well the cost that young people had to bear because of the years of austerity. Through the homelessness strategy, we have been trying to support young people at an earlier stage, and I will happily discuss that with him. We need to ensure that young people really do get a decent chance in life.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy Easter, Mr Speaker?
Under the previous Government, youth funding was reduced by approximately 70% and universal provision was impacted the most. Although we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the youth strategy, I am very concerned that local government reorganisation will result in a continued reduction in youth provision in our communities. We need to remember that the voluntary sector so often picks up the pieces; I see that in my constituency. It does a brilliant job, but it should not be down to the sector alone. Will the Minister advise on what assessment has been made of the impact of local government reorganisation on youth provision in areas beyond the promised 50 Young Futures hubs?
Alison McGovern
We are at risk of breaking out in violent agreement across the House about the importance of youth services and what the Conservative party did to them.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Liberal Democrats were in government! We did it together!
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues across Government, and my Department works very closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on the interactions between social security policy and homelessness.
Caroline Voaden
Years of freezes to local housing allowance by successive Governments mean that it goes nowhere near covering the cost of social housing, let alone renting privately. In my constituency, the average rent for a three-bedroom home can be well over £1,100 a month, but a family of four will receive only £840 a month. Poor and temporary housing is a key driver of child poverty, so it is really important that we resolve that. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to unfreeze local housing allowance so that we can lift children out of deep poverty?
Alison McGovern
In my previous role and in my current role I have worked very closely across MHCLG and DWP to see the interactions between poverty and homelessness, as I said. We spend £34 billion annually on housing support through social security, including £12 billion on the private rented sector. As part of the child poverty strategy, we have lifted the two-child limit, which will help families—particularly larger families—to stay in homes. We are helping parents with childcare costs, we have brought in the fair repayment rate so that people do not need to get into unnecessary debt, and we have increased the standard allowance of universal credit above inflation for the first time in as long as anyone can remember. Those are big steps to help family income, and we should all be proud of them.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The gap between average rents and wages in Poole is among the widest in the country. Freezing the local housing allowance has clearly made that position worse. Will the Minister outline when the freeze will end and when we will see the allowance increase to reflect the actual housing costs that people face?
Alison McGovern
We obviously keep the local housing allowance under review along with the DWP. If we want to prevent homelessness, we need to build homes and ensure that people can afford them. That is why the Chancellor’s investment of £39 billion to build the social housing that we need is a crucial part of ensuring that families can get housed properly in this country in the future.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework. That framework still contains strong protections for the green belt, making it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved unless justified by very special circumstances.
Wendy Morton
The approach to the green belt taken by Labour Members is the clearest example yet of their saying one thing and doing another. The Secretary of State campaigns against building on green spaces in his own constituency, but he is more than happy to see green spaces in my constituency concreted over by developers. Can the Minister tell me why constituents’ green space in my area is apparently less important than the green space in the Secretary of State’s area?
Matthew Pennycook
As the right hon. Lady well understands—we have had this exchange many times—it is for individual local planning authorities to determine whether green-belt land should be released and the exceptional circumstances test has been met. All the clever questions that she comes up with—I admire her ingenuity in doing so—disguise her true position, which is that she does not want any houses built on any green-belt land in any part of her constituency or anywhere near it, even if that means preventing families from buying or even longer waits for people on housing waiting registers.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Is the Minister confident that the Government’s invention of the term “grey belt” is providing protection to the green belt?
Matthew Pennycook
I am confident, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm to me whether it is now the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition that if all reasonable options for meeting identified housing need have been exhausted, including grey-belt land, no green-belt land can ever be released, even in those very special circumstances. If that is their position, the Opposition are consciously and deliberately consigning people in this country to longer misery as a result of the acute housing crisis that got worse on their watch and is still causing misery, which we are undoing.
Gareth Bacon
The Government have previously claimed that so-called grey-belt land is comprised of old petrol stations and disused car parks, but by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes on so-called grey-belt land that had been approved by Government planning inspectors, 88% were due to be built on what had previously been undeveloped countryside. The evidence is unequivocal: the green belt is under attack from this Government. Why will the Minister not just admit that the term “grey belt” is in fact a dishonest concoction designed to mislead the general public?
Matthew Pennycook
It is anything but a dishonest concoction. As I have said, grey-belt land is determined by local planning authorities where it does not meet the purposes of the green belt, as set out. I come back to the question of what the hon. Gentleman is saying: is he saying that our strategic and targeted approach to the green belt should be replaced by the chaotic and haphazard approach that the previous Government took, under which we saw swathes of green-belt land released across the country, often in the wrong areas? The grey belt is ensuring that the right kind of low-quality green-belt land is released where all other options have been exhausted and where need for housing needs to be met through that avenue.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Pride in Place programme supports community cohesion by backing locally led change—local people coming together, whatever their background, to determine their own priorities for putting pride back at the heart of their community.
Sarah Smith
I have established a Get Hyndburn Working group, which is bringing together local organisations, schools, the Department for Work and Pensions, voluntary sector organisations, the college and our training providers to tackle economic inactivity and look at the high levels of our young people who are out of work, training and education. Does the Minister agree that Pride in Place funding could play a key role in supporting these place-based, collective approaches to tackling such issues?
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing that working group together. That is an excellent use of her role as a Member of Parliament to support her community to have a bigger say, and to enable them to share their ideas and creativity about how to tackle local priorities in the circumstances she is talking about—the important matter of getting people into work and guaranteeing them a better future.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise that a far smaller proportion of social rented homes are let as furnished or partly furnished, compared with the private rented sector. In our response to last year’s consultation on a new decent homes standard, we made clear that we are exploring what more can be done to support the tenants who are most in need to access floor coverings and other essential furniture. Tenants currently living without essential furniture can, of course, look to local authorities for support through the crisis and resilience fund.
Luke Akehurst
Karbon Homes, which is the dominant social landlord in North Durham, provides furnished tenancies to ensure that vulnerable low-income tenants can access essential furniture and white goods. What steps will the Minister’s Department take to ensure that other social landlords across the UK adopt this approach, to greatly improve the quality of life for the least well-off people?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and commend Karbon Homes for its commitment to furnished tenancies. While such tenancies are not mandatory, we know that many social landlords want to know more about the opportunities that furnished tenancy schemes can provide, as well as the funding and budgeting implications and operational requirements. We intend to publish comprehensive best practice guidance alongside our updated decent homes standard, and will engage with providers and other stakeholders in its development.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency I have families moving into social housing with no beds for their children to sleep in, no table at which to eat family meals and no white goods with which to cook healthy meals. Will the Minister recognise the importance of ensuring that tenants moving into social housing have access to basic furniture? Will he commit to working with social housing providers to ensure that no one is left without the essentials?
Matthew Pennycook
I do recognise the importance of ensuring that tenants can access essential furniture where required. Furnished tenancies are not mandatory. In making the decision on the decent homes standard, we had to balance the costs involved with the need to ensure that the requirements cover all providers. We are—not least through the best practice guidance that, as I have just made clear, we intend to bring forward—seeking to encourage the really good practice out there, so that more social landlords can take advantage of the opportunities that furnished tenancy schemes provide.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government continue to steadily implement those reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the leasehold system for good in this Parliament, not least through the provisions in our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was published on 27 January.
Alex Ballinger
My constituent Yvonne has lived in a house in Halesowen that she has owned for 20 years. She purchased it under a leasehold arrangement that allowed her property management company, Principle Estate Management, to quadruple her service charge from £400 to £1,550 without conducting any maintenance. Clearly, Yvonne feels that she is being ripped off, and other residents of the same housing estate are now having difficulty selling their homes. Will the Minister outline what action is being taken to tackle property management firms such as Principle Estate Management, so that people like Yvonne are not continually being ripped off?
Matthew Pennycook
I am determined to switch on the improved leaseholder consumer rights provided for by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, including service charge standardisation and transparency measures, at the earliest possible opportunity so that people like Yvonne, and many hundreds of thousands more across the country who are dealing with exorbitant service charge increases, including in my constituency, will get the protection they need. When it comes to managing agents, we are committed to strengthening regulation, as my hon. Friend knows, but I will happily write to provide him with the full position and details of what measures we are considering.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer and the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for raising these issues. We have similar problems in my constituency, and I know that the Minister is keen to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can take advantage of the legislative change that the Government have proposed here. Will the Minister talk with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the proposals put forward by the UK Government to address these issues can help my constituents in Northern Ireland too?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we engage regularly with our Northern Ireland counterparts. On leasehold reform, which covers just England and Wales, I am more than happy to provide him with the insights of the proposals that we have been working up and what more we are considering to take forward in future months and years.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government do not support the introduction of rent controls, which we believe could make life more difficult for renters. There is sufficient international evidence from countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from individual cities such as San Francisco, as well as the recent Scottish experience, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent controls on tenants.
Dan Carden
There is an injection of housing investment in some parts of my constituency, but sadly it is by landlords who are taking advantage of low house prices to turn family homes and whole terraces into houses in multiple occupation, charging sky-high rents for people to live in single bedrooms, undermining the local community. The Minister has told me a few times that the Government are opposed to rent controls, but will he look again at the evidence and start to consult? It is clear that we need to see rents come down in this country, especially in the most deprived areas.
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked at a wealth of evidence, particularly international evidence, of what the impact of first and second-generation rent controls are, as well as more subtle forms of rent control, which can have differential impacts on different groups. Such controls typically benefit settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move. While I appreciate that a broad spectrum of regulation falls under the title, there is enough international evidence, in the Government’s view, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent controls, and our position remains that we will not introduce them.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Renters Rights Act 2025 meets Labour’s manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting in England. We will introduce our reforms in three phases, the first of which will begin on 1 May, when section 21 no-fault evictions will be abolished and rent increases will be limited to just one a year. We will end rental bidding wars and limit requests for rent in advance to a maximum of one month, and it will be illegal to discriminate against prospective renters who have children or who receive benefits. These are the biggest reforms in the rental sector for a generation. The Tories and Reform UK voted against them and the Greens want to abolish renting, but this Labour Government stand firmly on the side of renters.
Sarah Dyke
The availability of affordable housing in Somerset has plummeted, demand has surged and rents have risen by six times as much as income. These challenges are highlighted in rural market towns such as Glastonbury, where hundreds of people live in vans and caravans lining the kerbsides. Many are there because they cannot afford to rent a bricks-and-mortar home. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that everyone has a decent and safe place where they can afford to live?
Steve Reed
Ensuring that there are decent and safe places to live all across this country is a primary objective of this Government. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the social and affordable homes programme opened for bids in February, and the first phase of bidding will close later in April. The programme will provide up to £39 billion for the biggest ever increase in the amount of social and affordable housing across this country, including council housing, which will make a massive difference to people in rural areas as well as those in other parts of the country.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Our recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework included proposals to strengthen support for rural exception sites, and to make it easier for authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites in rural areas. My hon. Friend will also be aware that designated rural areas are already exempt from the right to buy, but I would be more than happy to meet her and her fellow members of the research group to discuss protecting existing stock, and other matters covered in the recent report that she referenced.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Last week I was in Bromsgrove, a rural constituency facing an 85% increase in its housing target. Neighbouring Labour-run Birmingham, which has significant brownfield capacity, has seen its target cut by more than 30%. Targets are increasing by 37% in Essex, but decreasing by 11% in London. House building has collapsed under this Labour Government, so why is the Secretary of State letting his Labour-run urban friends off the hook while dumping housing targets in rural Britain?
Steve Reed
It was, of course, the Conservative Government who abolished housing targets everywhere, which led to the housing crisis that we are now facing. Under that Government, the number of people sleeping rough, on the streets and in shop doorways, doubled. Opposition Members are smiling while I explain what they did: they are smiling because the number of people sleeping on the streets doubled, while the number of families in temporary accommodation doubled as well. The Conservatives did nothing when the housing market collapsed in 2022-23 because of Liz Truss’ Budget, which the shadow Secretary of State supported.
Sir James Cleverly
The Secretary of State cannot answer—he does not have an answer. Perhaps he can give the answer that he failed to give in response to a written question, because he has once again refused to publish either the prospectus or the selection criteria for his election pilots. This is part of a wider pattern: cancelling elections that the Government do not think they will win, changing local government boundaries instead of giving that task to the independent Boundary Commission, and changing voter ID arrangements without consultation. When I saw this kind of behaviour overseas, I called it out for what it was: dirty, self-interested, partisan politics. Will the Secretary of State scrap this Orbán-style politics and start doing things properly?
Steve Reed
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, elections are going ahead all over the country right now. I suspect that, like me, he has been campaigning and knocking on doors to talk to people about how they will vote, and we will find out in a few weeks what their judgments on all of us will be.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Through the Representation of the People Bill, we are significantly lowering the threshold for when unincorporated associations register with the Electoral Commission, and we will require them to publicly identify a responsible person who is legally accountable for compliance with electoral law.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Just before Easter, a development of 500-plus homes in my constituency, predicated on building a brand-new Howard of Effingham school, was withdrawn after a decade of commitment to the plan. The developer is expected to proceed with a new application without a school. The community and school are understandably angry and upset. What powers does the Minister have to ensure that developers can be held to such long-term commitments, and will he meet me to discuss the issue and its implications in my constituency and more widely?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady will appreciate that Ministers cannot comment on individual planning applications or local plans, but I am more than happy to meet her and discuss the general issues arising from the case she mentions.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is important for local authorities to work very closely with NHS colleagues, as I am doing in Government, to ensure that we have sufficient adult social care. Otherwise, we will not be able to get people out of hospital and into good homes. I ask his local council to pay attention to that, and I will happily work with him on it.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. We want to see all councils progress towards financial sustainability, and what I would say to her constituents is that the decisions taken over the past 14 years have left councils paying for failure. If we get that right, we will be able to spend on the things that people really prioritise locally.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Can the Minister outline how the new national homelessness strategy will provide additional funds to Sunderland city council to tackle rough sleeping and to support the vital work that organisations such as Oasis Community Housing, the Salvation Army and the Sunderland Community Soup Kitchen do in our city?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and, through him, I thank the organisations that he mentions. Our homelessness plan provides millions of pounds for Sunderland to help prevent people from becoming homeless. As with all Members, I will work with him on that.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
I find it quite galling that we have the shadow Secretary of State saying that we have lowered London’s housing targets too far and the hon. Gentleman saying that they are too high. They are just in the right place, from my point of view.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for outlining the reforms that will come through with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. In 18 days’ time, residents will see no-fault evictions banned. The Minister knows that we need local authorities to have the resources, and he has outlined that there will be additional resources for local authorities, including the launch of the private rented sector database and the PRS ombudsman. Can the Minister give us an update on when they will be live?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend will not have to wait long at all for details of the new burdens funding that is coming through for local authorities. On the implementation of the Act more widely, as she knows, the database, the ombudsman and other things will come through in further waves after the wave that commences on 1 May.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Rural areas are facing a wave of unauthorised developments on land owned by Travellers, with little or no action being taken against them. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and 30 of my colleagues have been pressing for national support to give new powers to the police and local authorities to deal with this issue. Will the Minister meet us to discuss the issue, which is causing havoc in our precious British countryside?
Matthew Pennycook
Local planning authorities have a range of planning enforcement powers to tackle unauthorised development, with strong penalties for non-compliance. In our recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, we included proposals to strengthen national policy in respect of unauthorised development. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and other hon. Members about the issue.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
My constituents in Blackpool South pay more in council tax for their housing than people with mansions in Mayfair. That is because, under the Conservatives, Blackpool council had to put its council tax up to the max just to get by. Will the Minister outline for my constituents how we can lower council tax for people in Blackpool South?
Alison McGovern
I have mentioned the increased charge that the Chancellor introduced, because this Labour party believes in fairness when it comes to council tax. I will work with councils right across the country to get their costs down so that people are not left paying sky-high bills in future.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The presumption in favour of development at transport nodes and on the so-called grey belt means that in my constituency of Esher and Walton, which is half green belt and has a disproportionately high number of stations—everybody lives within 15 minutes of a station—everywhere can be developed under the Government’s proposals. What should I say to my constituents who are facing concrete everywhere?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member should say that they live near highly sustainable areas for development and we want to see more homes come forward in those areas.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Last week, the Sikh community in Sandwell was rocked by a second appalling attack at Guru Nanak gurdwara. For the second time, the gurdwara faced a racist attack in which someone dropped a bag of meat on the doorstep. Given that meat is strictly banned inside the gurdwara, this was deeply offensive. As this was a repeat attack, will the Minister meet me to talk about what we can do to stop this anti-Sikh hate and make the gurdwara safe?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for telling the House about this appalling incident, which we all agree is absolutely terrible. Racial and religious hate is completely unacceptable. I am sure that her constituents will be glad to know that the Prime Minister is here to hear what has happened. The Government support such organisations. I will make sure that the Minister for community cohesion—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) —meets my hon. Friend.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
At the behest of Labour-dominated Southampton city council, two thirds of my constituents are to be torn away from the New Forest and placed under the control of an urban-dominated unitary authority. Does the Minister accept that my constituents are overwhelmingly against what the Government are trying to do?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point on behalf of his constituents. We take everybody’s views into account. I know that this will be difficult, but we will be working with all colleagues as we make the process work.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The week before Easter, Derby suffered a terrible incident in which a car was driven into crowds of people on Friar Gate and several people were seriously injured. Will the Minister join me in thanking the emergency services for their response, as well as members of the public who delivered first aid? Will she meet me to discuss how we can strengthen local preparedness and design out risks, not just in Derby but across the country, to help to keep people safe in future?
Samantha Dixon
I am so sorry to hear about that terrible incident. I will, of course, meet my hon. Friend. The local resilience forum in Derbyshire has worked really hard to respond to the event; I will work with her and with others across the country on resilience and recovery.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Conservative-run East Sussex county council has a vendetta against local businesses. Most recently, it placed an enormous storage crate outside the Dickens Tea Cottage, which will affect local businesses. Will the Minister urge the council to remove it so that we can protect custom at that local business?
Alison McGovern
I would advise all councils not to have a vendetta against local businesses.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In just one week prior to Easter, Hillingdon council discharged its homelessness duty by issuing 22 section 208 notices and placing 77 individuals, including 35 children, in Hartlepool, with many concentrated in just one postcode. Does the Minister accept that this unfair practice places far too great a burden on towns like mine?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House; he knows how important it is. Hillingdon council will have heard what he has said. Mr Speaker, I will not try your patience by rehearsing all that the Government are doing on this issue, but it is not acceptable.
Middle East
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my visit to the Gulf, the evolving situation in the middle east and the implications for Britain’s security.
Before I do that, I want to put on the record in this House my total determination to make the changes across the entire state that are so clearly necessary to honour the victims, the injured and the families of Southport. Today’s report is harrowing. It is difficult to read and I cannot begin to imagine the pain upon pain that it will cause the families it affects. Our thoughts are with them today. The Home Secretary will respond to the report in full after this statement.
Last week I visited the Gulf and was able to thank in person some of the brave men and women who, from day one of the US-Iran conflict, have resolutely defended the interests of this country, its people and its partners. I thank them again, in this House, for their courage and their service. I am sure the whole House will join me in those thanks.
While in the Gulf, I met leaders and senior military representatives across the region, including the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United Arab Emirates, the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain, and the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar. In recent days, I have also spoken to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Kuwait. Across all those conversations, I agreed to deepen our engagement on both defence and economic resilience, because they all made it abundantly clear that the solidarity and strength of our partnership with them has been a comfort in these challenging times. We should not forget that the nature of Iran’s response—the indiscriminate attack upon countries that never sought this conflict and the huge damage done across the Gulf to civilian infrastructure, with civilian casualties—is abhorrent. It has clearly shocked the region and all of us.
We must bear that in mind now as we lift our sights to the future, because while the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran is undeniably welcome, it is also highly fragile. The region remains on edge and a lot of work is required to reopen the strait of Hormuz and de-escalate the situation, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. In pursuit of that goal, we call for Lebanon to be included, urgently, in the ceasefire. Diplomacy is the right path and I welcome the talks taking place this week. Hezbollah must disarm, but I am equally clear that Israel’s strikes are wrong. They are having devastating humanitarian consequences and pushing Lebanon into a crisis. The bombing should stop now.
We also put on record our thanks to Pakistan and other partners for playing such an important role in diplomatic efforts. We hope the process will continue without further escalation. That applies to the running sore that is the strait of Hormuz, shamefully exploited by Iran. All the leaders I met were crystal clear that freedom of navigation is vital and must be restored—no conditions, no tolls and no tolerance of Iran holding the world’s economy to ransom. The impact of Iran’s behaviour in the strait is causing untold economic damage that is visible on every petrol forecourt in this country.
My guide from the start of this conflict has always been our national interest. That is why we stayed out of the war and why we continue to stay out of the war. It is why we are working now to restore freedom of navigation in the middle east—because that is squarely in our national interest. Clearly, that is not a straightforward task, and it will take time. I have met UK businesses in energy, shipping, insurance and finance, and they are clear that vessels will not be put through the strait until they are confident that it is safe to do so. That is why we are working around the clock on a credible plan to reopen the strait.
I can confirm today that together with President Macron, I will convene a summit of leaders this week to drive forward the international effort we have built in recent weeks, bringing together dozens of countries to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz. The summit will be focused on two things: first, diplomatic efforts to bring pressure to bear for a negotiated end to the conflict and for the strait to be opened; secondly, military planning to provide assurance to shipping as soon as a stable environment can be established. Let me be very clear: this is about safeguarding shipping and supporting freedom of navigation once the conflict ends. Our shared aim is a co-ordinated, independent, multinational plan. This is the moment for clear and calm leadership and, notwithstanding the difficulties, Britain stands ready to play our part.
Let me return to the impact of the conflict on our economy. We all know that the consequences will be significant and that they will last longer than the conflict itself. We continue to monitor the effects. I remind the House that energy bills went down on 1 April and that whatever happens in the middle east, those bills will stay down until July. We are investing more than £50 million to support heating oil customers, and fuel duty is frozen until September—all because of the decisions this Government took at the Budget.
However, there is a wider point. We cannot stand here in this House and pretend that a global shock threatening to hit the living standards of British people is somehow a novel experience; Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now. From the 2008 financial crash, through austerity, Brexit, covid, the war that still rages in Ukraine and the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss, the response each time has been to try to return to the status quo—a status quo that manifestly failed working people, who saw their living standards flatline and their public services decimated.
This time, Britain’s response must and will be different to reflect the changing world we live in. That starts with our economic security: during this conflict alone, we have capped energy bills, raised the living wage, strengthened workers’ rights and ended the two-child limit, which will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. Looking forward, it also means a closer economic relationship with our European allies, because Brexit did deep damage to the economy, and the opportunities we now have to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore.
It continues with our energy security. I say once again that oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, we do not set the global price for oil and gas. Households across the country are fed up with international events beyond their control pushing up their energy bills. I stand with them on that. We will go further and faster on our mission to make Britain energy-independent, because that is the only way we will get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and take control of our energy bills.
Finally, we must strengthen our defence security. That means boosting our armed forces, as we have, with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. It means doubling down on the most successful military alliance the world has ever seen, of which this party in government was a founding member: the NATO alliance. It also means strengthening the European element of that alliance, taking control of our continent’s defence more robustly, and deepening our partnerships, as we have done with our deals to build Norwegian frigates on the Clyde and Turkish Typhoons in Lancashire. Not only is that creating thousands of secure jobs and opportunities for our defence industry right across the country, but it is enhancing the way that our armed forces can collaborate with our allies.
As the middle east conflict shows once more, the world in which we live has utterly changed. It is more volatile and insecure than at any period in my lifetime. We must rise to meet it calmly, but with strength. That is exactly what we are doing at home and abroad. We are strengthening our security, taking control of our future and building a Britain that is fair for all. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I would like to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women serving in the middle east right now.
The Prime Minister is right that Britain did not start this war, but whether we like it or not, we are impacted by it, and this is likely to get worse. The cost of borrowing has jumped, and petrol prices are climbing. Inflation is rising, and living standards are falling. It is time to take decisive action in our national interest. Britain must focus on what is in our power to protect British citizens today. First, we must rapidly solve the energy crisis that this war has caused in our country. Secondly, we must make sure that Britain is ready to defend herself in this new age.
A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the UK. We should be in no doubt whose side we are on in this war: our allies in the middle east and the United States. I welcome the Prime Minister meeting some of those allies, and I welcome his support for diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region, but we will need to go further than just talking. He says that Britain stands ready to play our part, but we can all see that we were not ready for this situation.
Here is what we need to do now. First, we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, not just until July but longer than that—permanently. Britain is particularly vulnerable to energy price shocks because we are killing domestic oil and gas production in the North sea. Labour’s policy of more expensive energy and de-industrialisation at this time of crisis is dangerous and irresponsible. It is also harming the defence industry. We must start drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, and restore British production before it is too late. The Prime Minister says that this will not impact international prices, but this is about more than international prices. This is about the domestic supply, especially of gas, all of which is used in this country. Supply matters.
Furthermore, the Government must cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty. Hiking taxes on motorists for the first time in 15 years, while prices are surging, is a disgraceful decision. If Britain is to be a stronger country, it needs a stronger economy—not one that is being hammered by the highest energy prices in the developed world. Will the Prime Minister grant those oil and gas licences and scrap the rise in fuel duty? I know that he will say that it is the Energy Secretary’s job to do that, but the Energy Secretary is not the Prime Minister. He is, so he can instruct the Energy Secretary to grant those licences.
Secondly, to be ready, Britain must be able to defend herself, and that means we must be ready for these situations before they happen. France and Greece—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. I am surprised, because last time I checked, France and Greece sent ships to protect our bases in Cyprus while our destroyer was stuck in Portsmouth. It was a national embarrassment—on Labour’s shoulders—and it should never happen again.
We need no further evidence that we are living in a more dangerous world than a decade ago. I am sure Labour MPs will try to think of a way to make this my fault. [Interruption.] Yes, I know, it is preposterous, the historical illiteracy on the Labour Benches, but let me remind them that Governments of all colours—including those guys on the Liberal Democrat Benches—spent the peace dividend from 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, until the Ukraine war. When that war came, the Conservative Government responded rapidly and unequivocally. We did not have anything stuck in Portsmouth when Ukraine was invaded. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and equipped them with our missiles.
We increased defence spending every year after the Ukraine war started, but the world has since become even more dangerous. Every serious person, especially in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. After the election, many of the plans for spending were paused for Labour’s strategic defence review. Nine months after its publication, there is still no defence investment plan that explains how we will fund this. The defence readiness Bill is also nowhere to be seen. The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. That is what is missing from the Government’s plan. They have a plan for welfare spending until 2031, but no plans for defence spending.
I say to the Prime Minister: let us put party interests aside—[Interruption.] I am glad that Labour MPs are laughing. I want the public to hear Labour MPs laughing when we say, “Let’s put party interests aside,” so please, keep laughing—go on. I say to the Prime Minister: let us find the money to rearm, let us identify the spending cuts, and if we reach agreement on a joint plan, we can all support those measures in Parliament. Conservatives have already found savings to fund more than £20 billion extra in defence spending. I am willing to work with him to go further.
I am sure the Prime Minister, in his response, will be tempted to misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes. [Interruption.] Yes—Labour MPs cannot resist the temptation, but he and I both know that is not true, so let us get serious. It is time for us to act decisively in our national interest. Let us show our allies what we bring to the table. Let us show our enemies that we are able and ready to defend ourselves. That requires a defence investment plan, so when exactly will that plan be published, and what action is the Prime Minister taking to find the money to pay for it?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. Lady’s opening sentence has changed. She used to say, “We didn’t start the war, but like it or not, we’re in it, and we should be in it.” That was her position. Now she says—well, they cannot make their mind up. They supported the war without thinking through the consequences, and now they are pretending they did not support the war and were against it all along. She challenged my position, and she did the mother of all U-turns on the most important decision the Leader of the Opposition ever has to take.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the planning that we are doing with other countries. It is important. It has a number of components: the political and diplomatic component; the logistics of getting the vessels through, on which we are working with the sector; and, of course, the military component. We have been working on that for two or three weeks, and now, with President Macron, we are bringing together the summit later this week.
Yes, we all want to get energy bills down, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years, but it is because we are on the international market that our bills have gone up. That is the problem. The strait of Hormuz is a choke point for oil and gas getting to the international market. That has pushed the price up, and that is being reflected in every household. That is why the only way to take control of our energy bills is to go faster on energy independence.
The Leader of the Opposition used to make that argument. In 2022 she said that
“it’s investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”
and keep costs down. She changes her mind on everything. That was her argument; now, just like she pretends she was not in favour of getting involved in the war, she pretends she was not in favour of keeping costs down.
The Leader of the Opposition says that we must be ready. That is coming from a party that hollowed out our armed services. On the Conservatives’ watch, frigates and destroyers were reduced by 25%. Minehunting ships were reduced by 50% on their watch. Yet she lectures us about being ready, having hollowed out our armed forces and hollowed out our capabilities. We are investing £300 million more in shipbuilding, and we have 13 ships on order. That is the difference between the two parties. I hope that she, and they, will forgive me, but after 14 years of their breaking everything under their watch, I am going to resist the offer of joint planning from the party that crashed the economy, hollowed out our armed forces and trashed our public services. Thanks, but no thanks.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Foreign Affairs Committee has just come from a meeting with some of the Gulf ambassadors, who are genuinely grateful for the help that Britain has given in defending their countries, and want to say how grateful they are that the Prime Minister visited the Gulf, in an act of true solidarity. But when people heard the Israeli Defence Minister say that his war aims in Lebanon would follow “the model in Gaza”, our blood ran cold. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what role the United Kingdom can play to ensure a ceasefire in Lebanon, and that Israel is prevented from taking over Lebanon south of the Litani river?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the important question of Lebanon; I want to be really clear in relation to that. Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, and we are using every opportunity we can to make that argument. I am pleased that there is some diplomacy at the moment, but those attacks should stop and it is important that we are very clear about that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in what he said about the horrific attack in Southport. Our thoughts are with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected.
“A whole civilisation will die tonight”—
words I never thought I would hear from an American President. Though Donald Trump thankfully did not follow through this time, those words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral and completely outside the bounds of international law this President is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He is no leader of the free world. He is a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. Will the Prime Minister advise the King to call off his state visit to Washington before it is too late? I really fear for what Trump might say or do while our King is forced to stand by his side. We cannot put His Majesty in that position.
Trump’s latest cunning plan, to blockade the strait of Hormuz, will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. It is right that the UK is not joining him, and I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump’s. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the strait of Hormuz. That is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis, which is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. Petrol prices are now up by more than 25p a litre and diesel up 49p since Trump started this war—cheered on, let us not forget, by the leader of the Conservative party and Reform.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses cannot wait months for the Government to step in and help? Will he use the windfalls that the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus and rail fares, and to cut fuel duty by 10p today, bringing down the price at the pumps by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. In relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, can I really be clear with this House? That was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let us remember, who have suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. That is why they are words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this Government, who are guided by our principles and our values throughout all this.
In relation to the King’s visit, the relationship between our two countries is important on a number of levels. The monarchy, through the bonds that it builds, is often able to reach through the decades on a situation like this; and the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States, and that is why it is going ahead.
In relation to the blockade, let me be clear, as I have been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the strait of Hormuz because of the damage that the situation is doing to economies around the world, including our own. That is why we have been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. We, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the President announced.
In relation to the help that is needed for families and households, obviously we have already put in place help for energy bills and heating oil, but we are keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why we are focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for confirming that, despite the significant unwelcome trolling and pressure from President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu, the UK is not being dragged into this war and that it is not in our national interest. Given that the US has now initiated a blockade of Iranian ports, can the Prime Minister confirm what steps are being taken to help de-escalate the situation and reopen the strait of Hormuz so that goods can transit freely and we can ease the cost of living pressures for our constituents? Also, what is being done to help de-escalate the situation in Lebanon? Can he confirm that any future UK involvement in the region will be strictly limited to defensive purposes?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and reiterate that we will not be dragged into the war. We are taking steps across a number of levels. What we can do together to de-escalate was central to the discussions I had in the Gulf states last week; they are shocked and angry, frankly, that they have been attacked in the way that they have been attacked. They were not involved in the conflict, and it is clear to them that they were targeted within hours of the beginning of the conflict starting, and that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted as well. They are absolutely clear that that targeting was put in place before the conflict started. We are working with them and across the coalition of dozens of countries to de-escalate and to get the strait of Hormuz open just as soon as it is viable and credible to do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister may recall that on day one of this war, I supported his defensive attitude to it and said that we could not change the regime from the air. We agreed and he has been proved right, but—with apologies to Leon Trotsky —we may not be interested in war, but war is interested in us. We all agree that we have to rapidly re-arm, but the trouble is that with an ever-increasing proportion of our economy being taken up by the state pension and benefits, perhaps we cannot afford to do so. Will the Prime Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition to take the necessary—perhaps unpopular—decisions to return defence spending to what we spent in 1989 at the end of the cold war?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right to raise this, and we have already raised defence spending, as he knows, in the most significant way since the cold war. I was clear in the Munich security conference speech that I gave a few weeks ago that we need to go further and faster, and we will. In addition to the funding itself, it is really important that we take this opportunity to collaborate and co-operate with our partners, particularly in Europe, because if all European countries simply increase their spending without regard to the capability that they are using that spending on, we will not make the best of what we have got. Therefore, I am making a dual argument—first, in relation to the actual money we have spent, and secondly in relation to the way we need to collaborate on this with our allies, particularly in Europe, in a way that we have not done, frankly, in decades.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire—1,700 people have already been killed by Israeli attacks and 1.1 million people have been displaced. At a time when aid budgets have been cut, including by our own Government, will the Prime Minister commit to playing that international leadership role, as he is doing, on getting a ceasefire, working with our European partners and others, and to supporting the humanitarian effort and increasing support to those being displaced in the region? Will he also think about how we support countries in the global south that will now be hit hard because of this crisis? The impact of that will affect us all if we do not take action at the international level.
The Prime Minister
Can I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and be clear that Lebanon must be included in the ceasefire? It is very important that we are clear about the principle behind that. I also accept that there must be more support on the humanitarian front. We have just put more money into the humanitarian support, but it is clearly a cause of concern in Lebanon and in the wider area, as she rightly points out.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I think the Prime Minister should acknowledge—I am sure that he does—that over the past 30 years our armed forces have been hollowed out by Governments of all parties as they have sought to take a peace dividend, but I am afraid that the chickens have come home to roost on his watch. Will he therefore now commit to a huge and immediate uplift in defence spending—not just by vaporising British soft power expenditure; we are talking of moving towards a 5% increase—so that the Government can play a full part in European defence and deliver on their first duty to their own citizens?
The Prime Minister
I agree that our armed forces and our capabilities have been hollowed out over many years, in particular under the last Government, I am afraid to say—Ben Wallace, the then Defence Secretary, was very clear about that. The right hon. Member is right to say that now is the point at which there is probably more conflict going on in the world than most of us have seen in our lifetimes, and that is why we have to increase defence spending. That is why we took the decision to increase to 2.5% sooner than people thought we would, and that is already taking place. I made commitments at the NATO summit last year in relation to the further spending that we need to put in place. I stand by those commitments. We must go further and we must go faster.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Let me thank the Prime Minister for his statesmanship. This weekend saw the Pakistani Government step up and take global leadership by expertly hosting and mediating negotiations between Iran and America. The whole world is indebted to the noble efforts of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and General Syed Asim Munir to achieve a ceasefire. Given that Pakistan is a long-term ally of Britain, will the Prime Minister outline what support he is giving the Pakistani Government to facilitate an agreement for long-lasting peace and stability in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
Can I reiterate my thanks to Pakistan for the role that it is playing? I can tell the House that I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday, as we were going into the talks this weekend, about the talks and what support we could put in place, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to her counterpart this afternoon. It is very important that we support this process and try to move it forward, not to let it escalate.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to condemn the abhorrent response of the terrorists in the IRGC, but I notice in his statement that there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Donald Trump’s actions, there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Netanyahu’s action, and—despite having the entire Easter break to think about it—there was explicitly no new financial support for households on these isles whatsoever, despite the fact that the Irish Government have put down €750 billion of support for motorists and farmers. The best he can muster is to “continue to monitor the effects.” Now, I appreciate that he might not be in office for very much longer, but while he is, the public expect him to provide support—why isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we put in support and protection for our citizens in the region by taking defensive action. He opposed that —protection for Scottish citizens in the Gulf. Scottish National party Members opposed taking any action whatsoever. It is only because we have stabilised the economy that we are able to reduce energy bills. What did they do? They voted against the Budget in which we put forward the money for that. We will carefully do the work that we need to do to reopen the strait of Hormuz, which is the single most effective thing we can do in relation to household costs, and to work for de-escalation. I would have thought that he would support that, but unfortunately he is again on the opportunistic road rather than on the road to supporting what we really need to do.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all that he is doing towards de-escalating the conflict in the middle east. I agree with him that we should not get drawn into the conflict. May I ask him about Palestine, and the west bank in particular? More than 30 former UK ambassadors have said that any bidder for contracts to design, build or finance the E1 settlement expansions should see their business interests in and with the UK endangered. Does he agree?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is very important that we do not lose focus on what is happening in the west bank, which is deeply concerning and worrying. On the E1 settlements, I made our position clear—the week before last, I think—and that remains our position.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
In a crisis, Governments have permission to do things that are not possible in normal times, but I am worried that what the Prime Minister is going to bring forward will not meet the measure of the moment. Will he commit to dramatically changing energy policy so that it focuses as much on cheap energy as on clean energy? When it comes to the desperate need to increase defence spending, will he consider serious welfare reform to stop someone who earns the national living wage while working full time sometimes getting only half as much support as someone on the three main benefits?
The Prime Minister
Of course we have to focus on the cost of energy. There is simply no denying the fact that it is because we are on the international market that our energy prices are going up and down. Families across the country are really fed up with the fact that international events happen, which they cannot control, and their energy bills go up and down, causing a cost of living crisis. That is because we are on the international fossil fuel market—there is no denying that—and it will be the case as long as we are on that market, because it controls the price. Putin and Iran control the price of the international market, and the longer we are on it, the more that families here will be subjected to that.
We have to take control of energy bills. The only way to do that is through energy independence. That is why I think we need to double down, and go faster and further on that. Yes, of course, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come—I have been clear about that—but it is equally clear that that will not have an effect on the price and cost of energy bills. The only thing that will is coming off the international market that we are stuck on. That is why the strait of Hormuz is so important; we do not get that much energy from oil and gas coming through the strait, but because we are on the international market, we are impacted by the fact that others do. That is the source of the problem, and that is why we are working so hard to resolve it.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I echo the comments about the President’s statement on Easter Sunday, when he said that he could destroy a 2,500-year-old civilisation in an evening. Is it not clear that the strait of Hormuz was open before the President foolishly launched his illegal war? Will the Prime Minister say clearly that no British military assets or brave personnel will be put at risk by the President’s foolish idea to blockade the strait even further?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is of course Iran that is putting the chokehold on the strait. That is wrong, and the strength of feeling across the Gulf last week was very, very clear to me. I can assure him that we are not getting involved in the proposal to blockade the strait. On the contrary, we are working with other countries to try and get the strait open, and fully open, for free navigation, something this country has championed for years and years and years.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Today, the US President impersonated Jesus Christ. Last week, he pledged to wipe out an entire civilisation. His warmongering in the middle east is piling on the pressure for my constituents in Esher and Walton, from prices at the pump to mortgage increases in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Given the disturbing utterances from the occupant of the White House and the squeeze on our living standards, surely the future is across the channel towards Europe, and I note that the Prime Minister gave a line, presumably for the local elections, about alignment with Europe, but can he give more detail on what this means for defence, for security and for prosperity?
The Prime Minister
A close relationship with the EU and Europe was in our manifesto in 2024, which was a very successful manifesto, and we have been working to that end ever since, which is why we had the first UK-EU summit last year, with 10 strands agreed. It is also why I have been clear that we want to go further this year, not just in seeing where we have got to on what we have already agreed, but going further than that because it is in our interests, whether in defence, security, energy or the economy, to be closer to Europe and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome his convening of a summit of leaders alongside President Macron. The situation in Lebanon is devastating. Israeli escalation has led to a grave humanitarian situation. The images of civilians being carpet-bombed are horrifying. I want to reiterate what the Foreign Affairs Committee heard today. We met with ambassadors from the Gulf. They expressed their genuine appreciation for the Prime Minister’s presence and Britain’s continuing support. May I ask the Prime Minister to continue to represent the voices of our constituents and to resist escalation, to include Lebanon in the ceasefire and to press for peace?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we will make the case for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire, and we will continue with our work to de-escalate and not get drawn into this war.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
We all hear the Prime Minister’s words about Lebanon, but the lesson of the last two and a half years is that his words, and the words of anyone in this House, have no impact on an Israeli Government seemingly led by supremacist maniacs. Before Easter, I asked the Foreign Secretary how many Lebanese was an acceptable number to see killed over the coming weeks, and we have learned over the Easter break that there is seemingly no upper limit before we are willing to act. I want to ask the Prime Minister a simple question: given that he rightly proudly pointed to the part Britain is playing in defending other nations in the region, why have we not stepped forward to defend Lebanese civilians in the same way we have others? Secondly, I have an even simpler question if he cannot answer that one: does Lebanon have a right to exist?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really serious issue. The immediate focus has to be on ensuring that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire and being absolutely clear in our condemnation of the action that Israel is taking. We are working on that on a number of levels, but I have always believed, and continue to believe, that we are stronger when we work with other countries, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement and note the emphasis he has put on there being no return to the status quo, particularly in relation to the importance of energy independence. Will he acknowledge that we are now entering a new energy era, and perhaps he agrees with President von der Leyen, who today has said:
“There is one thing that all these events are making clear: we are paying a very high price for our overdependency on fossil fuels. And the grim reality for our continent is: fossil fuel energy will remain the most expensive option in the years to come”?
The Prime Minister
That is the argument that I have been making, and I believe it to be right. It is the argument the Leader of the Opposition used to make, but she has U-turned on that as well.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
All our constituents are worried about the price of energy, including the price of gas. But is the Prime Minister aware that the price of gas in the US has fallen by 20% since the start of this war while the price of gas in the UK has increased by 50%, proving that if we produce and consume our gas domestically we can have much lower bills, and proving too why we must allow the consents for Jackdaw, Rosebank and all of the oil fields across the North sea and onshore as well?
The Prime Minister
I remind myself that the hon. Gentleman’s party’s position was to fully support the war—to go in with both feet, whatever the consequences. Now he says that there are these consequences; well, his party should have thought about that before it adopted the policy of going straight in. On the question of energy and gas, yes, the price is subject to the international market because we are on the international market, and that is why the sooner we have energy independence, the better.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Trump’s illegal war on Iran and his genocidal threats to kill a whole civilisation are part and parcel of a dangerous new US security plan. The Trump doctrine is based upon yet more war and tearing up international law, making the whole world less safe. Given that, I say to the Prime Minister, is it not time for Britain to stop being a junior partner to the US and to pursue a truly independent foreign policy? Should the very first step not be to end all US access to British military bases for Trump’s war on Iran?
The Prime Minister
We have about 300,000 British civilians in the Gulf region, and they are at risk because of Iran’s actions. It is my duty to ensure that we protect them. That is why we have taken action in our own right, particularly with our pilots. It is also why I have allowed the bases to be used for defensive purposes to prevent attacks on our civilians, as much as anything else, who are in the region. We are never going to abandon them to their fate when missiles and drones are incoming into the areas where they live and work. It is my duty to protect them, and I will continue to do so.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister remind some of his colleagues that the United States is a democracy and an ally, and Iran is an odious regime that could have ended the war this weekend had it agreed to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons and to cease supporting its proxy terrorist organisations around the middle east? Would it not be helpful if the Prime Minister criticised the Iran regime a bit more, rather than supporting his colleagues in criticising the United States?
The Prime Minister
In fairness, I have been very clear about the Iranian regime—it is odious and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it is really important that it does not have a nuclear capability and that we deal with its proxies. That has been the consistent position of this Government—and previous Governments, to be fair—and it has been the way that I have put it from the Dispatch Box on many, many occasions.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I commend the Prime Minister on his efforts to keep the UK out of Donald Trump’s latest dangerous attempt to end a blockade by creating another. I also commend Pakistan’s attempt to broker peace and the UK Government’s work with over 30 countries to pursue a diplomatic solution. However, if the strait remains closed, what plans do the Government have to protect UK households and businesses from the impact on energy supplies, trade and rising costs?
The Prime Minister
We are planning for all contingencies, but I emphasise once again that our absolute focus has to be on getting the strait open. Having spoken to those working in shipping, finance, insurance and so on, they are very clear with me that they are not going to be putting vessels through while there is a conflict, and therefore we must de-escalate and come up with that credible plan. We will do that in conjunction with other countries, and that is why President Macron and I are convening the summit later this week, building on the work that we have been doing over the past few weeks.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In his statement, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to double down on NATO. President Trump has attempted to use the threat to withdraw from the NATO alliance to blackmail other NATO countries into joining his illegal endeavour in Iran, and he has threatened to annex the sovereign territory of another NATO member and has said that NATO members were not there for the US. It is clear that the US is an unreliable partner in NATO, so will the Prime Minister announce when he is going to release the defence investment plan? Will he explain how we can forge closer ties with our European allies, who are more reliable?
The Prime Minister
The first thing I would say is that it is very important that we defend NATO. It is the single most effective military alliance that the world has ever known, and we should do nothing to weaken it. I think there should be a stronger European element on defence and security—that is an argument I have been making for some time. It is particularly important now that Europe steps up with a stronger European element, and we are working with our allies to do that.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his positive efforts on the issue of the strait of Hormuz. Last week, I met with farmers in Whitby who are deeply concerned about the skyrocketing price of red diesel. In January, the fuel cost 64p per litre, and it has since doubled. With the busiest period of the farming calendar approaching, will the Prime Minister outline what measures the Government are considering to support farmers impacted by these rising costs?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we have been looking at that in the various meetings we have been having, particularly on the red diesel question, and we are looking at contingencies. In addition to planning for those contingencies, it is really important that we double down on our work to de-escalate and to open up the strait of Hormuz.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I quote the Prime Minister? He told us just a few moments ago that energy bills will “stay down until July”. He also correctly said that
“we do not set the global price for oil and gas”.
Is the Prime Minister making an enormous gamble on the energy price? How much money has he set aside in order to ensure that bills stay down even if prices rise? I am not sure if he is aware, but the last tanker to leave the strait of Hormuz and bring fuel to the UK docked only a few days ago. The last tanker to arrive in US waters will arrive in a day or two. After that, we are on our own. Is he taking that bet? Who is going to pay for it?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that we are reducing energy bills—we have done that already—by an average of £100 per household. That will remain the case until July this year. It is very important that people hear that message, because they are concerned. They are concerned to know that that will be the case whatever happens in the conflict, and it is. That decision was taken as a result of what we did at the Budget last year. We will be able to stabilise the economy and provide the money for it because we are bearing down on the cost of living.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for refusing to allow the UK to be dragged into America’s war in Iran, which is hitting my constituents directly in the pocket and at the petrol pump. He rightly mentioned the people of Palestine earlier. May I remind him that last week, the former heads of Shin Bet and Mossad security services, as well as former chiefs of staff of the Israel Defence Forces, described the ongoing settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank as “government sponsored Jewish terrorism”? That is not only a moral disgrace, but a fatal strategic blow to Israel’s own national security. I urge the PM to condemn the settler violence, Israel’s refusal to tackle it and Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements and to back the Pope, who said that peace should be the priority.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of settler violence, because it is disturbing and wrong, and it has escalated, as he knows better than most. Our clear position has been to call it out and to do everything we can in relation to settler violence, which is getting worse by the day.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
This crisis has laid bare the parlous state of the British military. The three main parties of government should put aside the blame game and accept that we have all played our part in getting the British military into the state that it is in now. For over a year, the Liberal Democrats have been asking for cross-party talks on how to get to the 3% spending target, and I am glad that the Conservatives have now joined us. We have spoken about defence bonds, and I am sure that the Conservatives and the Government have ideas. This could be the Prime Minister’s legacy. Can we get together in the national interest and talk about how to increase defence spending?
The Prime Minister
We do need to increase defence spending, and I have been clear about that. May I make the case that our military have been hard at work throughout this conflict from within about two hours of it starting? That means hours and hours of pilots taking on incoming missiles to safeguard our citizens, our interests and those in the Gulf. When I was there last week, all the leaders I met were at pains to thank us for what our military is doing. We are too quick sometimes to run them down; they have done a lot of brave work, particularly in the last six to seven weeks, and I thank them for that work.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts, not least over the past few days. Although many of us have a difference of opinion with President Trump about the way he talks and the actions he is taking in terms of Iran—those are obviously things that we on the Labour Benches do not agree with—I am a little concerned that we should not get his views mixed up with what those in Congress and the Senate in the United States of America think, where there is significant and overwhelming support for NATO and Europe. It is important that we remember that, because our relationship with America is very important, not least in terms of NATO. I hope the Prime Minister will comment on that.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the broad support that there is, and always has been, for NATO in the United States. While it is true that we should do more for a stronger European element in NATO, we should never pull away from NATO, which—as I say—has been the single most effective military alliance that the world has ever known.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The war in the middle east is having a real effect on my constituents. From fuel to fertiliser, prices are increasing, and action needs to be taken to alleviate the consequences. Although there are immediate steps that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor should be taking, not least reversing the planned increase in fuel duty, the bigger picture involves reopening the strait of Hormuz. What thought has been given to the role that the UK can play in clearing the strait of mines? In particular, did the Prime Minister raise the potential deployment of our autonomous minesweeping capabilities, which are already in the region, during his discussions?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about opening the strait and playing our part—there is the political and diplomatic element, but there is also the issue of military capability. What we are doing with the countries that we have brought together in a loose coalition, and will meet in person later this week, is to look across those capabilities and draw them together. We do have capabilities when it comes to minesweeping; I will not go into operational details, but the hon. Lady knows what they are. Obviously, as we look across the board with President Macron and others, part of that exercise—the military planners have been looking at this—will be how we can pull together the capabilities of all the countries that are prepared to work with us on this. We have been working with at least a couple of dozen for the past two weeks, and we will be doing that further this week.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in supporting our regional partners and our national interests, particularly that of free navigation. However, that lies outwith our most immediate security problem, which is defending Europe from Russian attack in all its forms. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should recognise Russian-Iranian co-operation, and that we must not let that distract us from our urgent need to rearm collectively and defend our country and the continent of Europe?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the really important issue of the relationship between Russia and Iran, and the assistance that Russia has given to Iran in relation to the intelligence that is being used during the conflict. We must never lose sight of the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts, and Russia is a huge threat to our continent and our country.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Will the defence investment plan be signed before the local elections on 7 May?
The Prime Minister
We are working to finalise the defence investment plan. It is really important that we do not make the mistakes that the last Government made; we inherited plans that were unfunded and not deliverable, so it is really important that our plan is robust. We are finalising it, but it will be a robust plan that serves for the future defence and protection of this country.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
We now know that an agreement was about to be reached on uranium enrichment by Iran. However, Israel decided to bomb Iran, as did the USA, engaging in an illegal, immoral and dangerous war of choice. Even during the ceasefire, which included Lebanon, Israel continues to bomb south Lebanon and Beirut, displacing millions of people. This is typical of Israel: just before an agreement is reached, it kills negotiators and bombs countries. This is not a faraway conflict; my constituents are paying the price for it through higher fuel costs and rising mortgages and household bills. [Interruption.] What additional steps is the Prime Minister taking to help my constituents, as well as people across the country and the world, by bringing peace—unlike Members on the Conservative Benches, who seem to be finding it very amusing?
The Prime Minister
That is precisely why we are working with other countries to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. As I said in my statement, that will not be easy, but notwithstanding that challenge, we will continue to do that work.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In the Prime Minister’s 17-page statement, there was not one word of condemnation for the actions of the US, despite the fact that it started this illegal war. Last week, Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilisation. The Prime Minister rightly condemned the horrific Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but we all know that the war criminal Netanyahu just ignores what we say, because there are no consequences. Will the Prime Minister take action, put sanctions on Netanyahu and withdraw all permission for the US to use UK bases and UK airspace, to make clear that we will not be an accomplice to the rogue actions of Donald Trump, which endanger us all?
The Prime Minister
The US is using the bases to attack the Iranian capability to fire missiles into the region, including at our citizens and our nationals. Members will have seen the images—going into hotels and the bases where our military are based. Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should reduce protection for our people in the region and expose them to attacks that they would not otherwise be exposed to? That, to me, would be a dereliction of duty, and I will never do that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I think the House is at one with the Prime Minister on the inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire. The problem that we face is that today there have been more airstrikes against the Lebanese, and the Israeli artillery is now shelling Lebanese cities and towns. Many of us feel that it is because Netanyahu is out of control, and Donald Trump is not willing to exert that control or influence to bring him into line. In the Prime Minister’s next discussions with European leaders that he is successfully convening, will he place on the agenda a comprehensive European sanctions strategy, so that we can exert some influence to prevent Netanyahu running out of control and creating problems for the globe, and not just the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Clearly, Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire. These attacks must stop, and we need to be really clear about that. We will work with our allies on both those issues.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We know that the defence investment plan was originally due to be published last year. As it is a 10-year plan, will it be a 10-year plan from publication in this financial year, 2026-27? Does that change the cost envelope? Is it a 10-year plan or a nine-year plan in terms of how it is being financed?
The Prime Minister
It is a 10-year plan, and it mirrors our strategic review. It sits alongside the defence spending commitments that we have made and are implementing with the 2.5%, and the commitments that I made at the NATO summit last year.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The House has repeatedly been told that the Government have permitted the US to use British military bases for defensive purposes only, but amid the widespread US targeting of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools, hospitals and bridges, we have not been told how those restrictions work in practice. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether US military aircraft have taken off from RAF Fairford or Lakenheath carrying heavy munition payloads? If they have, is there any US operational policy for action from our bases in place that has been approved by this Government? If not, is it the case that the working definition of defensive action is simply, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?
The Prime Minister
Let me assure my hon. Friend and the House that that is not the position. The use is for defensive action only. I am particularly concerned to make sure that we take every measure available to protect our nationals in the region, of whom there are very many. The use is for defensive action, and that is monitored. It has been monitored since the bases began being used.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Prime Minister is right to suggest that the tremors provoked by this conflict will reverberate long after the kinetic fighting has finished. There is perhaps no better example of that than Cyprus, where Government officials, all the way up to the level of the Prime Minister, have questioned Britain’s continuing sovereignty over our sovereign base areas there. May I ask the Prime Minister what he has done to reassure the Cypriots and the Cypriot Government that Britain is a trusted and reliable neighbour and partner, and that our continuing sovereignty is immutable?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I assure him that I have spoken to the President a number of times about the bases and about security in particular—which is, of course, a concern to him and to his public—and that those discussions are ongoing.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
This war, in which we are rightly playing no part, has my constituents fearing for the future, not least in relation to rising energy and fuel costs. That underlines the crucial importance of bringing down the cost of energy and securing energy independence; but will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that, while the Government are taking the necessary steps to provide us with long-term energy security through renewable energy and new nuclear, they will go further in the short term and tackle some of the profiteering that is happening, as well as directly supporting hard-pressed families and small businesses in my constituency in respect of the cost?
The Prime Minister
Yes. We will bear down on any profiteering, at the same time as pushing forward at speed for energy independence.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
May I ask the Prime Minister about one particular consequence of this war in the middle east, namely the rising cost of heating oil, diesel and petrol? Everyone is struggling—I have spoken to many businesses and people who are really struggling to pay their bills—but the support from the UK and Scottish Governments is only for people claiming benefits. When will the UK Government reconsider that approach and ensure that everyone, including working people and businesses, is receiving enough support?
The Prime Minister
We will set out the plans as they develop. Some of the ways in which we protect and support have to be universal, and, in fact, the cut in energy bills until the end of June is universal, but we are looking at the most appropriate support on a wider basis.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Fresh from a weekend knocking on doors, I can confirm to the Prime Minister that on the streets of my constituency there is no appetite for further involvement in this war. There are some—including, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition—who say that while they might not have chosen to start the war, now that the bombs are flying we have no choice but to support our allies. Will the Prime Minister confirm that President Trump’s America is not a reliable ally, that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Israel is not a reliable ally, and that we must work with our reliable allies in Europe to end the conflict and ensure that working people in this country do not pick up the bill?
The Prime Minister
We work with the Americans on a daily basis on defence, security and intelligence—it is important that I reiterate that position to the House—and, of course, we are working with them in relation to the use of our bases to take the action that is necessary to protect our civilians and our nationals. At the same time, we need to work more closely with our European allies on defence security, on energy and on the economy.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Prime Minister was right to mention the untold economic damage that this crisis has already wrought on households and businesses across the country owing to increased fuel costs, but does he share my fear and that of the agricultural sector that the prolonged closure of the strait of Hormuz may also feed through to higher food inflation? May I ask him what measures the Government are considering to help mitigate the potential consequences of a prolonged closure of the strait?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that issue. There will be consequential impacts beyond the immediate impact on energy, which is why we are monitoring and keeping under review the steps that we can take. However, I return to my opening point: the absolute focus must be on getting the strait reopened as quickly as possible, because all the time it is closed to free navigation the damage being done is being compounded, which is why it is so important that we work with our allies to that end.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Last week, President Trump was making the most outrageous and dire threats in order to try to reopen the strait of Hormuz; this week, he wants to keep it shut. Can the Prime Minister shed any light on the United States’s strategic objective behind this latest move, what can be done to reopen the strait of Hormuz, and what more this Government can do to protect our people from the economic consequences of this mess?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: I want the strait open, not shut. That is what we have been working on for the last few weeks, and we will continue to work on it. When I spoke to President Macron yesterday, we proposed pulling together a leaders-level summit later this year to continue the work that we are already doing. To be very clear with my hon. Friend and the House, that is to get the strait fully open, because that is the single most effective way to limit the damage that is being done to all our economies.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
When the Prime Minister was in the middle east, did the subject of the UK’s dependence on helium come up? It is an element that we do not produce in the UK, and it is vital for things such as MRI scans in the NHS.
The Prime Minister
We discussed a range of issues. I will not go into all the details, but we did agree that where we are working together already, we should double down and do even more in relation to resilience—which goes to the hon. Lady’s question—both economically and defensively. We will take forward that work.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s continued clarity on the need for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire, but Israel’s tactics in Lebanon—forced displacement, evacuation orders, 165 children killed and 87 medical workers killed—are straight out of its Gaza playbook. Does the Prime Minister agree that in Lebanon, as in Palestine, there must be proper accountability for these war crimes, because this age of impunity puts us all in greater danger?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It absolutely shows why we must keep pushing for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire. It is vital that we do so, and of course there must be accountability for all the actions that are taken, in any respect, in this conflict.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who have written to me over the past two weeks about the situation in the Gulf. They are of course concerned about their energy bills and the cost of living, but overwhelmingly they are outraged at the actions of all the actors in this conflict—Iran, Israel and the United States. What they want from their Government is more and stronger leadership on the international stage to open the strait of Hormuz. Will the Prime Minister consider going to the United Nations Security Council with an emergency motion to get that done and to condemn the actions in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady probably knows, we have been supporting measures in the UN over the last two weeks, particularly some of those that were put forward by our Gulf allies, and I had the opportunity to discuss those last week in the Gulf. We will continue to work with them and others on building the necessary coalition to do all that we can to get the strait open.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s tough stance in response to President Trump’s demands to get involved in this conflict, and his commitment that Lebanon must be part of the ceasefire. Our constituents need us to give them hope that they will not have to continue to live in a world that is driven by the uncertainty of when the White House takes to Truth Social. We can do things to de-escalate conflict, and one of those things is to support the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, which the Prime Minister knows is at the heart of much uncertainty in the middle east. Given that the conduct of settlers on the west bank directly undermines the possibility of peace and the possibility of a Palestinian state, will he commit to including their conduct in his conversations about the ceasefire and how we can give hope to people in the middle east and peace to people around the world?
The Prime Minister
I reiterate to my hon. Friend and the House our support for the two-state solution, which is the only way to achieve a viable long-term peace in the region. Of course, the settler violence is a threat to that. It is wrong in principle, and we will continue to bear down on it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
For years, and well before this conflict took place, Members across the House have called on the Government of the day to proscribe the IRGC. Regardless of whether it has been the Prime Minister or other Ministers answering, there has always been a pivot to economic sanctions against the IRGC. We know that the Iranian regime has found ways, through cryptocurrency and fake corporate structures, to evade those sanctions. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the effectiveness of UK sanctions against Tehran? On the presumption that those sanctions are failing, what precise action will he take to strengthen them?
The Prime Minister
The IRGC has been sanctioned in its entirety. In relation to what more we can do, obviously we have been looking at state-based threats, which will almost certainly require legislation—the hon. Member will be familiar with the review in that regard. There are further things that we can do, and hopefully we can work across the House on some of those issues.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is clear now that there was no plan behind this reckless war, and that the resulting energy crisis will have huge impacts both here in the UK and around the world. Can I thank the Prime Minister for his cool-headed approach in the face of pressure from the leaders of Reform and the Conservatives to follow the US blindly into this war? Does he agree that this demonstrates how important it is that we finally get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and continue our record investment in green energy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend on both fronts. It was very important that we made it clear from the start that we would not be playing any part in this war, not least because of the consequences. What the war has flushed out is the need to get off the international market and have independence of energy bills in this country.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
British drones flew over Lebanon hours before and after the Israeli massacre that killed at least 18 people in a Bekaa valley city, among 300 people across the region that day. We know that UK drones and surveillance flights have been used to feed operational information to the IDF during the genocide in Gaza, and it is deeply concerning that this may now be the case in Lebanon. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether these flights were co-ordinated with the Lebanese army? Was intelligence shared with Israel or with the United States? What is our armed forces’ role in this land grab and ethnic cleansing? Have any weapons supplied by the UK to Israel been used in Lebanon?
The Prime Minister
I have been clear throughout, and I will be clear with the hon. Gentleman: this Government are guided by the principle that any action we take, anywhere in the world, must have a lawful basis. That is the principle that I have applied throughout this conflict and throughout the time this Government have been in power.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I commend the Prime Minister—and also the leadership from the Foreign Secretary and the National Security Adviser, I am sure—for the work that is being done. I welcome the news about trying to resolve the issues in the strait of Hormuz, but I share the concerns that have been voiced across the Chamber about the situation in Lebanon and the west bank. Closer to home, the Resolution Foundation has stated that median working-age households will be hit by a £480 additional cost this year, which in my constituency is being described as the cost of Trump. Will the Prime Minister explain more about what can be done to assist households here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
The single most important thing is to de-escalate and get the strait of Hormuz open. That is why we are working so hard with other countries to do so, because the impact that it is undoubtedly having on our economy is affected by how long the strait remains closed. That is why we have to focus on that.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The price of energy is obviously important, but as important is the security of supply. Whether the Government like it or not, over 70% of our energy comes from oil and gas. The events of the past month must be a wake-up call to them: we must secure our supply. Luckily, we have a secure supply under the North sea, but—although his Ministers might say otherwise—the policies of the Prime Minister’s Government mean that we cannot produce it. When will he get serious about our energy security, end the ban on new licences, end the energy profits levy, permit Rosebank and Jackdaw, and finally get the UK drilling again?
The Prime Minister
Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come—I have been very clear about that. Oil and gas are being produced 24/7 in relation to our energy supply, and it is really important that that happens. That will be part of the mix, but equally, if we are to get to energy independence, which we need to do, we need to go further and faster on renewables.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and commend his leadership in steering the UK clear of the Iran conflict and blockade. During this war, healthcare centres, hospitals and ambulances have been attacked. The Iranians now face acute shortages of care and medicines. What action is the Prime Minister taking to press all parties to comply with international humanitarian law and end the attack on healthcare infrastructure?
The Prime Minister
Let me be really clear: any attack on healthcare infrastructure is completely unacceptable. That is why we have been very clear that, in relation to our own actions and the actions of anybody else, they must have a lawful basis. That is the starting point for all the work we are doing.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Prime Minister rightly referred in his statement to defence security and energy security, but he made no reference to food security. That feels like a glaring omission, given the impact of the doubling of the price of red diesel for the farmers who produce our food. I wonder if he is even aware that, outrageously, England is now the only country in the UK and in the whole of Europe that does not use its farm payment scheme to actively support its farmers to produce food. In these troubled times, does he agree that that is a glaring omission, and will he turn around and change that?
The Prime Minister
Food security is really important. It actually comes under energy security in a sense, because it is the energy costs that are pushing, or could have the effect of pushing, in relation to food security. That is why it is very important that we are focusing on de-escalating the situation and reopening the strait of Hormuz.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Resorting to violence does not achieve anything, but it has left 2,000 Lebanese dead and 1.2 million displaced. As the Prime Minister is demonstrating, bilateral and multilateral dialogue is the way forward to get progressive change. Instead of just looking at increasing the defence budget, will he also look at increasing investment in diplomacy and development, which is crucial in this increasingly destabilised world?
The Prime Minister
The work that we are doing with other countries has to start with the political and the diplomatic. Of course we are looking at military planning, but you cannot have military planning without diplomacy. It is absolutely clear to me that the strait of Hormuz will not allow for safe passage until a ceasefire is in place. All the sectors involved in vessels going through the strait are clear that they will not be putting their vessels through until that is the situation, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right about diplomacy.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Prime Minister is absolutely correct to praise the service of our armed forces personnel, and I join him in doing so, but they are being let down by the failure to deliver the defence investment plan. That failure can only be the result of either inertia or incompetence within the Government. Which one is it?
The Prime Minister
I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out the armed forces and they did not increase defence spending. The last time we were at 2.5% was under the previous Labour Government. Now we are at that under this Labour Government. I appreciate all the advice, but after 14 years of failure I do not really need it.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
From Iran to Russia, the major security threats we face are pan-European challenges. The Prime Minister referenced the need, and our intention, to work more closely with our European allies within NATO. Will he set out what more we can do to be ambitious with those allies on the continent to strengthen our defence and security partnerships, especially in the run-up to the EU-UK summit in the summer?
The Prime Minister
There is more we can do on defence and security, such as collaborating and co-operating about the particular capability, in addition to the amount of money that we are spending. That is what we are focusing on with our allies in the EU.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Britain’s military co-operation with the USA and Israel has enabled Israel to commit acts of genocide against the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people, and has enabled the United States to undertake this massive illegal bombardment of Iran. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that from now on the military co-operation and supply of weapons and parts to both Israel and the United States will be suspended while this appalling war goes on in Iran, which is a danger not just to the peace of the whole region but, clearly, to the peace of the whole world?
The Prime Minister
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the permission to use our bases is strictly for defensive purposes, and in particular to protect our nationals in the region. We have 200,000 or 300,000 of our nationals in the region. Iranian strikes were coming into their range and into the Gulf states that I visited last week, hitting infrastructure and being deliberately aimed at our service personnel. It is my duty to protect them and I will continue to do so.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in thanking our armed forces who are protecting British citizens in the middle east, and I thank him, on behalf of my constituents, for his cool-headed leadership and firm decision not to join Trump’s illegal war. Will he reassure my constituents, who are worried about the cost of energy, that he is doing everything in his power to secure peace, reopen the strait of Hormuz and ensure that consumers are protected against rocketing energy prices?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance—that is what we have been doing particularly intensively in the past two or three weeks. We will continue to do so later this week when President Macron and I host the summit together.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Going further and faster on renewables is entirely compatible with new licences in the North sea. My constituents can see that the Prime Minister has very little power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but total power to order new licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank in the North sea. How can he stand there and say that energy independence is the goal while he tries desperately to get oil and gas from elsewhere, which he can do little about, and refuses to overrule his insane Secretary of State for Energy and ensure that we produce—[Interruption.] I withdraw that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can the Prime Minister do so while refusing to overrule the crazy policies of the Secretary of State for Energy, who insists on not producing oil and gas here? It makes no sense. Prime Minister, get a learning, get a teaching—but make sure it is not with the Energy Secretary.
The Prime Minister
As I say, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. Decisions on Jackdaw and Rosebank will be taken according to the legislative procedure, which is the right way to do it. [Interruption.] We could legislate, but it would probably take longer. Oil and gas will be part of the mix, but in the long term, the only way to get energy independence is to go further and faster on renewables, which is what we are doing.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Japan, Turkey, China and India have already been in negotiation with Iran to try to secure safe passage for their vessels through the strait of Hormuz. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to visit the Gulf states and their leaders. He knows the importance of the strait to those economies. Did he receive any assurance from them that they would not try to negotiate with Iran to salvage their own economies? Any tacit acceptance by those states of Iran’s right to control the strait would set a terrible precedent and empower Iran’s leverage in its nuclear ambitions.
The Prime Minister
This matter came up in all the conversations that I had, and I assure my hon. Friend that there was absolute clarity among all the leaders with whom I spoke that there must not be any conditions or tolls, or anything that increases the chokehold over the strait of Hormuz in particular, which is very important to the Gulf. We have fought for the principle of freedom of navigation for many, many years, and for good reason.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
At the beginning of Trump’s illegal war in Iran, we witnessed the bombing of a school that killed at least 168 people, including 110 children. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the UK Government have agreed a no-strike list of civilian infrastructure that must not be hit by US planes launching missions from UK military bases?
The Prime Minister
Let me be really clear about this: there must be a lawful basis for anything we do, and that includes what happens from our bases. That is why we have been very clear about the use of the bases and why we are monitoring the use of the bases on the terms that we set out.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Since we last met in this place, the President of the United States has had at least three positions on the strait of Hormuz: first, he said that opening it was not in his interest because the US did not need it and did not use it; secondly, he speculated that it might be a good idea to have tolls on ships passing through the strait in a joint venture with Iran; today, he is overseeing a blockade. I commend the Prime Minister for his consistent and calm leadership, which stands in such clear contrast with those incredibly erratic comments. Does he agree that this conflict will ultimately be concluded not by posts on social media, but by patient and persistent diplomacy?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why we are pursuing that patient diplomacy, which is an essential first step in getting the strait open, and we will continue to do so.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I would like to ask the Prime Minister about food security. In response to an earlier question, he suggested that the answer to food security was to go further and faster on renewable energy. Does he recognise that carpeting some of the country’s best farmland—indeed, some of the world’s best farmland—in Lincolnshire in solar panels is counterproductive to that aim?
The Prime Minister
I do not think it is counterproductive. Just to be clear, however, I will say that the most important thing for food security is ensuring de-escalation and getting the strait of Hormuz open. That is why we have been convening a number of countries for the past two and a half weeks, and will do so again later this week, to operate at all levels to try to get that done as quickly as possible. I understand the impact on the farmers in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across the United Kingdom. That is why we have to have that absolute focus on the work that we are doing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He will know that Yom HaShoah, a Jewish commemoration of the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, begins tonight. We must never forget. But as this powerful memorial begins, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to flout international law by bombing innocent civilians in Lebanon and intimidating Palestinians in the west bank, under the cover of the US-Iran situation. What can the UK do to support the victims of Netanyahu and stop his ongoing destructive actions in all areas?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. That is why it is so important that we stay anchored in our principles and our values, foremost of which is that any action we take or support must have a lawful basis.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Following his ill-conceived and illegal war in Iran, President Trump has now sent the US Navy to block the strait of Hormuz. Already this year, Trump has unlawfully invaded Venezuela and threatened to annex Greenland, invade Cuba and quit NATO. He even accused UK troops and those of our allies of cowardice, before launching an unprecedented attack on the integrity of Pope Leo. Clearly there is nothing sacred or off limits to this man, yet there was not a single mention of Donald Trump in the Prime Minister’s statement. Given the catalogue of illegality and bullying, does the Prime Minister still believe that President Trump is a stable, reliable and trustworthy ally?
The Prime Minister
Can I remind the hon. Member that every day we work with the US on defence, security and intelligence sharing—
The Prime Minister
When I say the US Administration, I mean President Trump. He is the President. We share intelligence on a daily basis. That intelligence safeguards people in all countries across the United Kingdom, and in my view it would be foolhardy to give up the co-work we do, which is vital and safeguards the lives and interests of so many people in this country on a daily basis.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The disruption in the strait of Hormuz is having a real, growing impact on ordinary working people across the world and in my constituency, where many are already struggling to make ends meet—something the Prime Minister and I discussed when we met a few weeks ago. Will he update the House and my constituents on what steps he is taking to resolve this issue as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I know that this will be of interest to my hon. Friend’s constituents, many of whom are worried by what they are seeing on their screens and the knowledge that it may impact on the cost of living. I can assure them that that is why we are working with allies to seek de-escalation and get the strait of Hormuz open. That is not a remote issue; it is an issue that affects them, their cost of living and their household bills. That is uppermost in my mind as I take these actions.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Lebanese Health Ministry confirmed earlier today that 2,055 civilians have been killed since the start of this latest crisis, including 167 since Friday alone, so I join the Prime Minister in calling for the urgent ceasefire to include Lebanon. Since this crisis started, the Treasury has received over £200 million in additional VAT from fuel. Will the Prime Minister commit to using those funds in the UK to mitigate the cost of living crisis that the middle east crisis is causing?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member’s question underlines why it is so important that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire. We are looking across the board at all contingencies in relation to the support that we can put in.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituents are horrified by the civilian toll of US-Israeli and Iranian military attacks, including the threats to basic civilian infrastructure. They are also very concerned about the long-term domestic impact of the closure of the strait of Hormuz, for example on food prices. First, can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that UK bases will never be used to target civilians or civilian infrastructure? Secondly, can he reassure them that the Government are planning for all possible domestic impacts?
The Prime Minister
Those are both very important points, and I can give my hon. Friend’s constituents that assurance on both fronts.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Oxfam has warned that the Gaza playbook is being repeated. The Israeli military is demolishing villages in the south of Lebanon, displacing more than 1.3 million people, killing more than 2,000 and injuring more than 6,400. Journalists are being killed by the Israelis. NGO workers are being killed by the Israelis. United Nations peacekeepers are being targeted by the IDF. It is all well and good for the Prime Minister to say it is wrong, but what tangible action will he take to stop Israel’s war machine in its tracks this time, and when will he do what he failed to do during the genocide in Gaza and say no to Israel and no to Benjamin Netanyahu?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is right: the attacks are wrong, and it is important that we are clear on that. Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, and we are clear on that. We need to work with our allies to follow through on both those propositions.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I send my thanks and thoughts to our military personnel, particularly those on the Cornish Merlin that has been supporting our jets to defend British citizens since the Saturday after the conflict started. The strait of Hormuz issue has underlined the massive importance of energy independence in this country. Will the Prime Minister outline how we are seeking to solve that crisis in the short, medium and long term, particularly considering the wealth of natural resources we have in critical minerals and energy in Cornwall?
The Prime Minister
Let me underscore the point my hon. Friend makes about the wealth of that capability in Cornwall. We need to go further and faster on renewables, to make sure that we get energy independence. That is important for her constituents and for constituents across the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The manufacturing businesses that I have visited in my constituency recently are clear about the importance of both the availability and the affordability of energy. The longer business waits for a plan, the worse the damage will be, as investment plans are postponed and other costs are cut. When will the Government act to support businesses, particularly in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, hospitality and farming?
The Prime Minister
We have taken action in relation to particularly energy-intensive businesses. I recognise that those that fall outside that protection are extremely concerned. The most important thing that we can do for them is to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open, because that is the cause of energy prices going up.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The brutal Iranian regime is utterly appalling, but that statement is not necessarily true of Iran’s ordinary citizens, so I thank the Prime Minister for calling out President Trump’s words about obliterating a civilisation. The conflict has brought our energy security into sharp focus, which is why today’s announcement of a £600 million deal with Rolls-Royce for small modular reactors is so important. It is good for the country and good for jobs for my constituents in Derby. Will the Prime Minister go further to ensure that the small modular reactor programme is expanded and brought in at pace to support our grid?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Rolls-Royce project is hugely important, and I am very glad that we were able to announce it today. That is the first of the SMR projects, and it is really important that we take full advantage of such projects.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Given the threat that the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon present to world peace—in the middle east and beyond—does the Prime Minister not accept that action against the regime was inevitable, in order to cut back its military ability and its ability to blackmail the rest of the world by illegally stopping an important waterway? That has economic consequences for our country, but does he accept that, given the additional tax revenue for the Government from increased fuel prices, there is room to give extra support and that, in the longer run, we can extract our own oil and other resources, get the tax from that and have a secure supply that cannot be interrupted?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member. Iran’s nuclear capability and the development thereof, and its proxies, are of course a threat that has to be dealt with; the question is how. I have made my decisions based on the twin questions of whether any action that we take has a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. Those are the principles that have guided me, but that does not take away from the fact that those threats are there, and we have to deal with them in the most effective way possible. Of course, we need to look at the support that we can put in for businesses and individuals who are impacted by this conflict.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I commend our ongoing refusal to be drawn into this conflict. May I ask the Prime Minister what steps we are taking to ensure that UK bases are not used for offensive operations, and furthermore that they will not be used for any ill-advised US blockade of the strait of Hormuz, which would be economically ruinous?
The Prime Minister
The bases are strictly for defensive purposes, and we monitor that in order to make sure that that is and remains the case.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on Lebanon. We are seeing an Israeli military playbook from Gaza—collective punishment, forced displacement and attacks on health—being used in Lebanon without meaningful action from the UK Government. Will the Prime Minister please outline the specific steps his Government will take to ensure an end to Israel’s chronic immunity and impunity?
The Prime Minister
The immediate focus must be on ensuring that the ceasefire extends to Lebanon. That is crucial. Obviously, there is some diplomacy going on at the moment, but we need to keep that firmly in mind. We must work with others, not only on the question of Lebanon, but on accountability, which goes with the principle that any action should have a lawful basis.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership on this issue. Unlike certain other world leaders, it is clear that he recognises the consequences that international crises have on the cost of living at home. My constituents feel that impact every time they go to fill up the car, which is made more galling by the fact that in Bracknell fuel is between 2p and 10p more expensive than in neighbouring towns. What conversations have the Government had with the Competition and Markets Authority and the sector at large to clamp down on that obvious unfairness?
The Prime Minister
I am conscious of the impact that this situation is having on fuel, and therefore on people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are working on a number of fronts, first to make sure that there is absolutely no profiteering from this, in relation to the price discrepancies, but also to ensure that we de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. That will be the most effective way to get those prices down again, which will impact on everybody filling up their cars.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Prime Minister knows that his Government’s coffers have been swollen by hundreds of millions by the extra tax take, particularly VAT, on rising fuel prices. Would it therefore be unreasonable to expect a socialist Government to practise some redistribution of wealth from Government to hard-pressed vehicle users, farmers and businesses who are being crippled by the price hike in fuel? Today, surely, he can give some light to consumers by saying that, instead of anticipating an increase in fuel duty, he will announce a decrease in fuel duty.
The Prime Minister
We are looking at all contingencies, and it is important that we do so. We will continue to do so, mindful of the impact that the hon. and learned Gentleman points out. However, there is no getting away from the fact that de-escalation and getting the strait of Hormuz open is the single most important thing we need to focus on at the moment.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the positive steps that the UK is taking to promote a negotiated settlement to the war, and reassurance to shipping post-settlement through the straits of Hormuz, but it is clear that the war even thus far will have a significant impact on British consumers. He has talked about very welcome measures to support residents with energy bills, and those will be welcomed by my Dartford constituents, but would he consider additional measures to support those who are most vulnerable—those on the lowest incomes—with the cost of living as a result of the impact of this war?
The Prime Minister
Yes. We are considering what further support we can put in place—bearing in mind that de-escalation is the single most effective thing we can do.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The impact of this conflict is horrific for those in the line of fire. It is also causing significant financial distress for residents and businesses right across these isles. The Prime Minister stated that energy bills had gone down from 1 April, but for the tens of thousands of my constituents who rely on kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas, that is not true, and for the tens of thousands of my constituents who use petrol and diesel to access essential services many miles from their homes, it is not true. Will he correct the record on that? Will he also tell us when he is actually going to do something to help those households that are in distress?
The Prime Minister
We are looking at this across the board, and the hon. Gentleman will know that, in addition to bringing household energy bills down by £100 from April until the end of June, we also announced support for those who use oil to heat their homes. We need to look more closely at this across the board.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
President Trump told the world that this was about liberating the Iranian people, but you do not liberate people by murdering 165 Iranian children in an illegal attack. What we are witnessing now is absolute madness, with Donald Trump seeking to implement collective punishment not just on Iranians by closing the strait of Hormuz but on the wider global community, including British families, who are seeing a price rise in fuel, food and utilities. When will the Prime Minister build the courage and strength to state that the attack and the continued action are illegal under international law? If he seeks to prevaricate, will that not just show how weak and embarrassing this Government have become?
The Prime Minister
We are one of the countries that are pulling together a coalition to deal with the impact of this by de-escalating the situation and seeking to get the strait of Hormuz open. That is the most important thing for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, for my constituents and for people across the country.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
First, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) with regard to the Cornish Merlin helicopters from RNAS Culdrose in my constituency. The Prime Minister knows that he has the full support of the House when he says that he wants Lebanon included in the ceasefire, but surely he must accept that he could do a great deal more, first by ensuring that no UK arms components end up in the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Government, and secondly by ensuring that there is absolutely no trade with the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken measures on both of those fronts in relation to the framework of law that we have in place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, it is important to recognise the Prime Minister’s efforts to try to find a way forward in the middle east. That is incredibly difficult and it should be recognised. There have been fuel protests in the Republic of Ireland just in the last week, and similar protests are planned for Northern Ireland this coming week. Last Friday, I spoke to the Ulster Farmers Union and some of the farmers expressing concern about the rise in the prices of red diesel and fertiliser. On Saturday, in Portavogie, members of the fishing sector told me they were concerned about the rising price of diesel for their boats, and HGV users spoke to me last Friday and Saturday to say the same thing. The Republic of Ireland is giving some €5 million—£4 million in sterling—every day for the next 13 weeks to help those sectors. If the Republic of Ireland can do it, Prime Minister, please do the same for us in Northern Ireland and across this whole United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking across the board at what support can be put in place and at all the contingencies, but there is no escaping the fact that if we do not do the international work to de-escalate and get the strait open, we will be fighting an uphill battle, which is why we have to convene those countries and try to resolve what is a very challenging situation.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
May I join the Prime Minister in recognising and commending Pakistan’s efforts to facilitate dialogue in the pursuit of peace? It is, however, regrettable that a resolution has not yet been secured. I therefore ask him what assessment he has made of the breakdown in the US-Iran talks, of Israel’s role in the collapse of those talks, and of the ongoing strikes in Lebanon? Will he condemn the continued hostility, which is creating a fresh humanitarian crisis in a region already torn apart by Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians? Finally, does he acknowledge that it is long overdue that Israel’s aggression in the region should be forced to stop through sanctions and cutting diplomatic ties?
The Prime Minister
As I mentioned earlier, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday ahead of the talks. We have been in touch again since the talks broke down about the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which is the prospect of still trying to find a way forward. We will work with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and others to try to ensure that we get that diplomacy, as far as we can, and to de-escalate the situation in that way.
Southport Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Southport inquiry. I must thank all who participated in the inquiry and the chair, Sir Adrian Fulford, and his team. Today, Sir Adrian published the report of the inquiry’s first phase. This summer, the Government will provide a full response. That will also cover Lord Anderson’s Prevent review. Today, I will provide the Government’s initial reaction to an inquiry that exposes a series of tragic failures from which we must learn.
We do so in the shadow of the events of 29 July 2024. I will not name the perpetrator, nor dwell on the details of the crimes that saw three beautiful young girls murdered, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults, and lasting physical and psychological harm to many more. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that my thoughts today are with all those affected. In honour of them and the memory of three murdered girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, we must now act to prevent similar attacks. It was for that reason that my predecessor appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a full statutory inquiry.
The inquiry’s work has two parts. The first, which reported today, considered the decisions made by the agencies and services that interacted with the perpetrator. That included a range of institutions in the criminal justice system, as well as in education, healthcare and local government. It also considered the actions of the perpetrator’s parents.
The findings of the inquiry are unsparing. Sir Adrian has uncovered systematic failures across multiple public sector organisations. The recording and sharing of information were poor. None of the agencies involved had a full understanding of the risk that the perpetrator posed, and many did not take steps to assess the risk he posed to others. There was a failure by the agencies involved to take responsibility, and nobody was clear as to who was in charge; so the failure, because it belonged to everyone, belonged to no one. Where individuals missed opportunities to intervene, lessons must be learned, but they did so within organisations that repeatedly passed the risk to others and where systemic failings existed.
The perpetrator came into contact with the state on countless occasions. Lancashire police responded to five calls to his home address. The police were called when he was in possession of a knife in a public place. He was referred on several occasions to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He came into contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service and children’s mental health services. He was referred to Prevent on three occasions. He was convicted of a violent assault and referred to a youth offending team. All failed to identify the risk that the perpetrator posed, and so he fell through the gaps. The warning signs were missed: a growing history of violence, and a clear and continuing intent to commit harm.
In the Home Office, the focus falls on Prevent and policing. Sir Adrian is clear that police should have progressed the perpetrator to the multi-agency Channel programme. Channel could have actively assessed and managed his risk. Instead, he was not deemed suitable because he had no fixed ideology. That ran counter to the guidance at the time, but the thresholds were unclear and the guidance was applied inconsistently. The perpetrator’s multiple referrals were also considered individually, when they should have been seen as a cumulative and compounding risk. The perpetrator did not receive the correct interventions, and his autism diagnosis meant that professionals focused far too much on his vulnerability and far too little on the threat that he might pose to others.
The horrific attack was itself evidence of the ease with which it could be conducted. There were no restrictions to stop the perpetrator watching the violent content that inspired him, downloading instructions to make poison, or viewing terrorist materials online. He was also able to bypass the safeguards that should have stopped him buying and receiving dangerous weapons. These findings are devastating, but they are not surprising. Findings like these have been heard before in inquests and inquiries. This time, however, they must be a spur for change. The inquiry makes 67 recommendations. The Government are reviewing them and will respond to those which relate to national government this summer, and I expect local agencies to do the same.
Since this awful crime, the Government have already acted. That begins with Prevent. Since the Southport attack, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have reviewed historical cases to ensure that similar instances were handled correctly, with cases reassessed for any change in risk and managed accordingly. The Government have reviewed the Prevent thresholds and published updated guidance. We have introduced a new Prevent assessment framework, with mandatory training for counter-terrorism case officers. Oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened, ensuring that cumulative risk is not missed and senior sign-off is required before a case is closed. To provide independent oversight of the whole system, we have created an independent Prevent commissioner. I thank Lord Anderson, whose term ends today, for so ably taking on that position on an interim basis. I am pleased to say that I have appointed Tim Jacques as the new Prevent commissioner, and he begins his role tomorrow.
This Government have also begun to place greater controls on a dangerously unregulated online world. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. The Act is intended to limit children from encountering content that is legal but poses a risk of significant harm, although that is just the beginning of what can and must be done. The internet remains a dangerous place for children, and we are clear that tech companies have a moral responsibility to keep their users safe. The House should be in no doubt that, when they fail to do so, the Government will intervene. That is why we are consulting on whether to remove children’s access to social media entirely.
I can also announce today that we will legislate to prevent the spread of extreme violent content online. We have also made it harder for people to purchase weapons. The Crime and Policing Bill places new controls on the online sale and delivery of knives. We have banned the manufacture, purchase and possession of ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and earlier this year we published new guidance mandating that any child caught with a knife must be referred to a youth offending team.
In the aftermath of the attack, the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall KC—the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—to consider the legislative gaps exposed by the attack. That work identified an inconsistency that clearly needed addressing: unlike for terrorist attacks, there is no crime on the statute book for planning an attack without an underlying ideology. Jonathan Hall therefore recommended the creation of a new offence. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The inquiry also identifies a wider issue: rising numbers of young men are fascinated by extreme violence—boys whose minds are warped by time spent in isolation online. That is a risk to us all. Where someone is vulnerable to terrorism, they can and should be managed through the Prevent programme. However, where they are not, there is no clear approach to that risk. Today, we publish the terms of reference for the second part of the Southport inquiry, which will face directly into that challenge. Sir Adrian will provide recommendations on the adequacy of the existing arrangements, across all arms of the state, for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence-fixated individuals. He will explore what specific interventions are required to reduce the risk to the public. He will also review the influence of the internet and social media, and the ease with which weapons can be procured. Sir Adrian begins this work immediately, and will present his final recommendations next spring.
In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator, but there was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator’s parents knew the risk that he posed but did not co-operate with the authorities. There is also responsibility on the state, and on all of us here, to learn the lessons from failures, wherever they occurred. That lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure that we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths that would never have happened had the state—and those who work within it—acted differently. That is our task. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack—Bebe King, aged just six; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine—and the eight more children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside emergency services, who responded to this event.
As the Home Secretary rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies. Sir Adrian said that a
“merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and ‘hand-offs’”
meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed the danger Rudakubana posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found that Rudakubana’s parents created
“significant obstructions to constructive engagement.”
Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on the Conservative Benches will support necessary actions.
During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Rudakubana’s former headteacher Joanne Hodson. She told the inquiry that she was pressured by mental health services to water down the education, health and care plan to minimise the danger posed by Rudakubana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry:
“my efforts to include this information in the EHCP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss Steed”,
who was from child and adolescent mental health services,
“even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping AR as ‘a black boy with a knife’. Nothing could be further from the truth”,
but
“in the end…the wording of the EHCP was re-written in many places”.
This contributed to the clear risks being missed.
The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue: mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Calocane because they were concerned about an
“over-representation of young black men in detention”.
Even the Government’s notes on the Mental Health Bill accompanying the King’s Speech refer to that issue.
The fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration: when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary made clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and set out how the Government will change their approach in the future.
Today’s report also makes it clear that Rudakubana’s autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with, yet the Government’s King’s Speech notes on the Mental Health Bill again expressly said that people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today’s report, will the Government reconsider that?
I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is of course important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said:
“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”
He went on:
“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”,
and indeed in October, two or three months after the attack but well before the trial, information concerning the al-Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. The failure to provide information created an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024, and that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots. Will the Home Secretary therefore commit to making sure that in future such information is routinely released in cases of public interest?
As the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a “line in the sand.” We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s comments about potentially working together on the changes that need to be made as a result of the inquiry’s initial findings. The Government will respond by the summer, and I look forward to discussions with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the House is united as one in the action that needs to be taken. As he said, that is the very least that we owe the victims’ families and all those who have been affected by this horrific tragedy.
The shadow Home Secretary referred specifically to the testimony of Mrs Hodson, the headteacher. She gave evidence to the inquiry and I believe that her position was vindicated very strongly by the chair in the inquiry’s findings. Let me be absolutely clear: the only factors that should be taken into account are the potential risks posed by an individual and how best to manage those risks. No other factors are relevant. It is clear, in relation not just to Mrs Hodson’s experience but to the failures that existed across a multiplicity of public agencies, that at the heart of the problem was a failure to assess appropriately the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. He managed to slip through the cracks because no one agency took responsibility for the assessment of that risk, and ultimately for the managing of the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. Those are the only factors that should ever be taken into account. I will be working closely with Ministers from other Departments as we formulate our full response to the inquiry’s findings and set out our expectations of professionals, not just in health but in other public services.
On the diagnosis of autism, in his report Sir Adrian made it clear that it would be
“wrong to make a general association between autism and an increased risk of violent harm to others.”
However, he also found that the way that the perpetrator’s autism manifested itself increased the risk of harm that he posed to others. That shows the absolute importance of taking a case-by-case approach, making sure that all factors are adequately taken into account and that agencies take responsibility for how that risk is to be managed. Again, there are good lessons to learn for health practitioners and others in our local services when it comes to assessment of risk and how it is best managed.
On issues relating to communications after the attack took place, especially at the point when a lot of misinformation was being spread, particularly online, the shadow Home Secretary will know that there has already been a change in practice, having learned the lessons of what happened. There was a well-meaning desire to ensure that nothing was done that might prejudice a trial, but exactly how the rules are applied can be a matter of interpretation and degree. The College of Policing has already created new professional practice in its guidance for police officers, there is already a new Crown Prosecution Service and media protocol, and we are developing a new charter between criminal justice agencies and the media to ensure that whatever information that can be readily and easily be made available is made available at the earliest opportunity. It will always be incredibly important that nothing is done that might prejudice a trial, but I know that the shadow Home Secretary will acknowledge that since this horrific attack there has already been a change in approach to communications by the Government and other agencies. In other instances and cases, the Government and other agencies have made much more information available to the media, and therefore to the public.
I know that the inquiry’s findings and the phase 2 report will be of great interest to Members across the House. I look forward to working not just with the official Opposition but with Members from all parties to ensure that the House is as one in the response to this horrific tragedy—that is what we owe all the victims of this case.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. My constituents expect Prevent to keep them safe, so can she reiterate what changes she will make to Prevent, as the Home Secretary in this Government, to help to stop an attack like this happening in the future?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the reliance that all of us place on the Prevent programme. We should rightly be able to place that reliance on the programme and ensure that it is as strong as it possibly can be when it comes to preventing tragedies, diverting people away from potentially committing a terrorist act and driving them away from extremism more broadly.
We have already been delivering a number of improvements to the Prevent programme. There is new statutory guidance, improved training, new case management systems and much stronger interventions for people who are already on the programme. We also have a strengthened approach to managing repeat referrals; where there are a number of referrals, which individually might not have led to an onward referral to the Channel stream, the cumulative impact is now being taken into account. There is also a much more robust risk assessment tool. The totality of the changes that we have already made has put the programme in a much stronger position, but in learning of the findings from this inquiry, we will take more action as necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It is truly heartbreaking to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack. My thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them and with the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless attack like this from ever happening again.
The report lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities, from the police, Prevent and NHS mental health services to children’s social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator’s parents. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the Government will accept all 67 recommendations? Will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months?
Today’s report exposes serious oversights by online giants that allowed the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online? Will it crack down on big tech companies, like Amazon, that are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items?
Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that Prevent is not fit for purpose. It is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he did not possess a specific ideology—well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. Will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of Prevent within this Parliament so that future warning signs are not missed? Will she also commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in the next King’s Speech?
Shabana Mahmood
The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman is absolutely right; the sheer number of missed opportunities in this case is truly horrifying. That is why we must do everything we can to reform all these systems in our public services to make sure that no such incident can happen again.
There will be a comprehensive response from the Government on all of the inquiry’s phase 1 recommendations. I intend for that to come before the summer so the House will have an opportunity to debate it. As we move to delivery of the Government’s response to the recommendations, I will keep the House updated on our progress, including on where potential future legislation might be needed.
In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is continuing its passage through Parliament, we have introduced new age verification checks both at the point of sale and at the point of delivery of knives. That is a way of directly responding to some of the issues we have seen in this case, whereby the perpetrator was able to slip through the system. That should not be possible in the future once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is implemented.
Let me turn to the question of the threat posed by those who are fixated by violence but do not necessarily have an ideology, by those who have a mixed ideology, or by those who flit between having an ideology and not having one; there is a developing, complex picture of the sorts of threats that we face. We have made it very clear that those who have no fixed ideology but are vulnerable to terrorism are still, and should be, referred to the Prevent programme. That remains the lead programme for dealing with the risk posed by those individuals.
The inquiry recognises that there is a gap through which those who do not have a fixed ideology and are not vulnerable to terrorism might slip. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider how best to respond to those sorts of cases, and will make recommendations on who should take the lead on dealing with those individuals, but I want to assure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that the Government are not simply waiting for phase 2 to report. We are already trialling with a number of local authorities a new approach for those who are below the threshold for Prevent, but who present a risk that we are concerned about and who we believe might pose a risk of harm to others. We are thinking about different ways in which agencies might handle that risk in order to make sure those individuals do not slip through the net. As we learn lessons from those pilots, we will seek to start implementing them, while we wait, of course, for Sir Adrian Fulford and the inquiry team to come forward with fuller recommendations in this area in future.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and place on record my sympathies for the families of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, who are living with the most unimaginable loss.
The Southport attack has been ruled a “disaster waiting to happen” after the perpetrator was referred to Prevent on three separate occasions, and Sir Adrian Fulford has highlighted other multi-agency failings. On 20 June 2020, my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lost their son James, who was murdered during the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack—I am also thinking of them today. Like Southport, the perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens attack had been referred to Prevent four separate times, and multi-agency failures were also highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. Like the deaths of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, the deaths of James Furlong, Dr David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett were ruled to have been “probably avoidable”.
I acknowledge that it will take some time to go through the 67 recommendations that have been made in respect of Southport. However, can the Home Secretary advise the House on whether, despite the improvements to Prevent that she has outlined today, she actually believes that it is fit for purpose? She said in her statement that
“We must ensure we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths which should never have happened, had the state, and those who work within it, acted differently”,
but the fact is that we are here again, and we are here time and time again after multi-agency failures. Can the Home Secretary immediately take steps in respect of joined-up partnership working, and outline to us what those steps will be, in order to ensure that no other family has to endure such loss?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said, and associate myself with her remarks about the victims of the Forbury Gardens attack—about those who died and their families. She is absolutely right that we have been here far too many times. This must be a moment of change, and I am very hopeful that with such a thorough report from Sir Adrian Fulford, with such clear, practical recommendations for action to prevent such a tragedy from occurring in the future, we can and will make progress. As I know she will accept, that is the very least that we owe all the families, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to implement recommendations as we move forward. We all have to do more, and Government agencies all have to do more as well.
I assure my hon. Friend that I am standing up a taskforce to bring together all Government Ministers with relevant responsibilities, to make sure we begin work immediately on improving the systems and processes that are in place at the moment and that we are not simply waiting for the final phase of the inquiry to report—there will be more progress. We have taken steps to reform Prevent. I know that the Prevent strategy and the work it does has been of interest in this House for many years, and has been scrutinised very thoroughly. An intervention programme of this kind is always going to have to move very quickly to deal with changing threat patterns—for example, the way that Islamist extremism might have presented in the era of Daesh and ISIL in Syria becoming prominent is different from how it presents now—and practitioners have to be able to adapt as quickly as the presentation of extremist ideologies is developing. It will always be a work in progress, because the nature of the threat is changing so quickly and regularly. That is something we should acknowledge. However, we can and will have strong mechanisms in place to make sure that the programme does the job we all know it needs to do.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As a consultant paediatrician, I have to undertake Prevent training at regular intervals. On each one of those occasions, I have raised with Ministers my concerns about either the quality or emphasis of that training, or both. Can the Home Secretary say whether she feels that in this particular situation, the problem was mostly that the perpetrator did not conform to the usual patterns that people were being trained to spot; that people were being badly trained; that people were not using their training diligently; or that the actions once the case had been reported were not followed through? Which does she think was the major factor?
Shabana Mahmood
I would be happy to hear the hon. Lady’s personal experiences of the quality of that training. I think this is the first time that she and I have had an interaction on this matter, so I would be very happy to pick those issues up with her offline.
On the substance of the hon. Lady’s point, we must follow the findings of the inquiry’s chair, who said that there were five major failures in this case, including that no single agency took ownership of the risk that the perpetrator posed, that there was poor information recording and management, and that the behaviour was sometimes excused on the basis of the perpetrator’s perceived or diagnosed autism spectrum disorder. There were a range of factors in place, and we should follow the evidence and the findings of the inquiry’s chair. We will respond based on the failures that have been found.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
All of our thoughts today are with the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie. They have already suffered the most horrific loss, and to have confirmation today from Sir Adrian Fulford that their loss was preventable is utterly unbearable. Sir Adrian’s report highlights the failure of the multi-agency safeguarding hub, which was exactly the place where joint responsibility between different agencies should have been held, and he also said that children’s services were not well equipped to manage a risk presented by a young person, as distinct from risks to a young person. Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary what plans she has to work with the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, every professional working with high-risk young people knows exactly what to do when they are fearful that a young person is a risk to others, and is accountable for taking that action?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend notes one of the key failures, which related to the question of who the risk was to. In this case, too many of the internal assessments were of the risk to the perpetrator himself, not the risk that he posed to others. That must change, and Sir Adrian Fulford will make practical recommendations for the individual agencies, but his report speaks to the need for a cultural shift in the way in which these cases are looked at and managed. That will be a cultural shift for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, as well as those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Where a Prevent referral is made because there is a vulnerability to terrorism, there are already systems in place that would enable those risk assessments to be made on the basis of risk posed to others. Of course, in this case, the onward referral to Channel should have been made, but it was not. However, we have to make sure that even where an onward referral to Channel does not take place and somebody does not quite meet the threshold for Prevent, they are still picked up, and that that cultural shift for dealing with risk—for its management and assessment—takes into account all of the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the way in which she is promoting learning rather than blaming, because that is the best way to get the change we need. I also thank her for her robust response to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about the point he raised, and for the point she is now making about the requirement for a cultural shift. Can she take a close interest in this? Not many leaders in many organisations understand that it means changing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals in their organisations—it is not just about setting a policy. It requires a very concerted act of leadership, alongside diligence and consistency, as well as making sure that those who do not want to make that change are eased out of their positions and that there are no promotions for those people who do not respect and demonstrate the changed attitudes and behaviours that are required. This is a big ask, and does not often happen in the public service.
Shabana Mahmood
It is a big ask, and I am very clear that this must be a moment of change. I do not want to be standing here with a future tragedy, saying the same things that have been said in response to what happened in Southport. We owe the families a true moment of change in how public services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a cultural shift is critical for making onward progress, including for agencies that do not normally consider the risk posed to others, because they are primarily concerned with the risk of harm a person poses to themselves and their clinical need, which is different from the wider societal need to protect others from harm.
That is something the Government will now have to look at closely, to bring forward real change within our health service, within education and within local government. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take a close personal interest in that because, at the end of the day, preventing harm and keeping our people safe is my responsibility. I will make sure we do everything we can to have those mechanisms as robust as possible for people who meet the threshold for being dealt with through the Prevent strategy and onward referral to Channel. Where people are below that threshold, we still need an answer as a society. I will take a close interest in that myself.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families, as are mine. One of the many aspects of what has gone wrong here relates to children’s mental health services. Will the Home Secretary please outline what we are doing about the workforce in children’s mental health services? There is a real shortage of people who are skilled in that area.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have already taken steps to shore up the provision of mental health services within the national health service, and I am joined today on the Front Bench by colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care. I know they are listening closely and will be absorbing the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made in phase 1 of his inquiry. I will be working with all Ministers across Government before we formulate our fuller response to all 67 recommendations, but let me assure my hon. Friend that the provision of mental health services will be critical to the work that the Government do as a result of this inquiry.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Home Secretary’s statement confirms the core failure that when everyone was responsible, no one was accountable, and we have seen that pattern before. We saw the same passing of the buck in safeguarding, in grooming gang cases and in mental health. We have heard today about reviews, frameworks and guidance, but not about enforcement. Can the Home Secretary tell this House plainly what consequences will follow if recommendations are not followed to the letter?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right that it is one thing to bring about changes and to change professional practice, but that these things should be enforced properly. When the Government respond in full before the summer to all 67 recommendations, I will lay out our expectations. It is important to recognise that Sir Adrian Fulford does not make individual findings of fact in terms of individuals and those failings, because there was such widespread system failure. It is right that in the first instance the Government look at the wider systems we have in place, but ultimately, if there are failures within those systems, including individual failures, there should be accountability.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for her continued leadership on this issue. Can I join the whole House in sending my sympathies not only to the victims, but to their families? This was a dreadful crime, and I am sure that any parent in the Chamber will be, like me, rightly appalled by it. Having worked in education and in the charity sector, I saw an awful amount of buck passing when it came to mental health support and safeguarding issues. My view was always, “If in doubt, report it.” In this case, things were reported, but they were not taken forward, which is hugely concerning. Can the Home Secretary assure me that this buck passing, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), will stop and that there will be accountability and people will be held responsible for these issues?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right that the failure of any one organisation or group of individuals to take responsibility for the perpetrator is one of the key failures in this case. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider the best mechanism for managing people who pose these sorts of risks going forward, and recommendations will be made about the proper structure that should be brought forward. Where somebody meets the Prevent threshold, Prevent will remain the lead institution for referrals. That referral and onward progression to the Channel stream should have happened here. If it had, we would be in a different position today. For those who do not fall within that threshold, we will need a wider system response. As I have said, I am trialling pilots in different local authorities to look at different approaches for what we might do with those individuals who are below the threshold. In the end, Sir Adrian Fulford’s work will give us the new framework and some guidance on the best agency to take the lead in different cases. When an agency takes the lead, or even if they are convening all the other agencies, there is an obvious form of accountability. That is how multi-agency safeguarding hubs should work but sometimes do not. Those are the key areas where lessons need to be learned.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she plan to provide any additional resource or funding to the Prevent programme? If so, does she have any initial idea as to where that may be targeted?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. When the Government respond in full to the recommendations, I will set out any resource implications not just for the work of the Home Office, but for other agencies.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in commending the bravery of victims in coming forward to give evidence to this inquiry. We owe it to them to make this a turning point and to make certain that the systemic failures and culture that made this attack possible are fixed and can never be repeated. Many of us in this House will recognise from the report the difficulties in accessing CAMHS, the ambiguities in responsibility and massive under-resourcing of this vital service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this moment calls for nothing less than a revolution in how children’s mental health services are commissioned and resourced?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are recommendations for different Departments, including Health, to take forward, and I will be working closely with Ministers from across Government as we design our response to Sir Adrian’s recommendations. Violence fixation, the descent into nihilism and fascination with extreme violence demand a new public policy response from all of Government, particularly for those children who would not necessarily meet a test for clinical need, but who absolutely do pose a risk of serious harm to other people.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When I heard the news this morning and the catalogue of failures and missed opportunities were read out—including the focus and attention there was on this murder, yet he was allowed to get away—my heart went out to the families of those three wee girls whose murder could have been avoided, yet the opportunity was missed. Time and again in this House, over the time I have been here, I have heard of individual child abuse cases, rape gangs and mass murder, and on each occasion there was failure by public bodies and individuals in public bodies to prevent what happened. Unfortunately—it has been highlighted here again today—there seems to be this attitude that if there is colour or ethnicity involved, the fear of racism is an additional factor. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances today, but given how deeply this attitude is embedded in the public sector, what steps does she intend to take to make sure that this does not happen again and that those who are responsible for these decisions are held to account?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the report of the inquiry makes for horrifying reading. The recommendations are incredibly important. The Government will respond in full by the summer, and we will take forward practical work to ensure that we strengthen all our systems so that this cannot occur again. I repeat that the only thing that matters—the only relevant factor—when we have a person who is violence-fixated and has a fascination with extreme violence is the risk they pose, the assessment of that risk, and the steps to mitigate that risk. No other factor should be taken into account by any agencies. The most important thing is that we keep people safe and that we do not allow other irrelevant considerations to play any part. The inquiry made findings in relation to Mrs Hodson, the headteacher, and I agree with and endorse Sir Adrian Fulford’s findings.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Home Secretary will be aware, there are 28 Prevent priority areas across the country—there used to be 40, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of them until 2023, when the last Government changed the criteria. She will also know that for an area to become a Prevent priority area, the local authority normally has to demonstrate that it is a hotspot for either right-wing extremism or Islamist activity—or, in the chequered past of my own city, both. If Jonathan Hall’s legislative suggestions come into force and there is a new offence of non-ideologically based fixation with violence, how does the Home Secretary see that playing into the Prevent priority areas, given that the locality will be much more difficult to consider? Following the events of August 2024, when there were riots in Stoke-on-Trent, has she given any thought to whether any recommendations for where new funding should go to help deal with some of these issues should take account of the places where there was rioting at that time—particularly places, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that do not currently qualify for Prevent priority funding?
Shabana Mahmood
Once phase 2 of the inquiry has concluded—especially when it comes to the proper mechanism by which we deal with some of these violence-fixated individuals—there will of course be knock-on consequences for the wider counter-extremism system. It would not be right for me to get ahead of that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that both the current and the future work of the inquiry will require further clarity on exactly where responsibilities sit. I believe that the Prevent programme will continue to play an incredibly important role and will remain our main tool for countering extremism, although I am sure there will be more we can do to strengthen its ability in that regard. However, as I have said, there will be knock-on consequences in other parts of the system, including funding consequences. I will be able to set out more of the Government’s response on that when we respond fully to the inquiry’s recommendations, but I think that as phase 2 gets under way, some of the real meat of the new policy responses that are needed for violence-fixated children will emerge.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
A young person who is at risk of harming others will often become known to a teacher, a social worker or a health worker before any other agency is aware of that risk, but statutory requirements make it very difficult to report on a young person who is below a certain age. Will the Home Secretary work on the introduction of multi-agency, multi-departmental changes to establish, above all else, a statutory requirement for teachers, health workers, councils and others to bring forth young people who are under age if they pose a risk? Currently, many agencies are afraid to come forward because they believe that there is a statutory requirement to protect the child, rather than to report a potential risk to others.
Shabana Mahmood
Phase 2 will consider how we deal with, and what is the correct public policy response to, children who are violence-fixated. One of the horrifying developments of the last few years is the number of children—ever younger children—who are fascinated with extreme violence, and have a nihilistic approach to it. That is shocking, and I have seen cases involving very young children. There must be an adequate public policy response that is able to counter this descent into violence fixation, and to do so effectively. That is the meat of the work that will be done in phase 2, and we will of course follow closely all of the recommendations that are made.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Like those of others, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the horrific attack in Southport. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address what can only be described as a very challenging environment. Only two weeks ago, I visited the Islamic Jami Community and Education Centre in Kingstanding, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because we share a constituency boundary. The building had been attacked a few weeks into the month of Ramadan, and then attacked again with vile vandalism and graffiti. Those attending the institution were clearly very anxious, but members of the community also came out to support the local Muslims. Will the Home Secretary join me in commending not only the actions of West Midlands police, who acted very swiftly, but those of the various faith groups who came together? They do not just come together in solidarity when an incident such as this occurs; they are also the very backbone when it comes to identifying any form of extremism within our communities.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the solidarity between people from different communities. We do not often talk about it in the House—we tend to do so only when a horrifying incident has taken place—but it is indeed the backbone of the way in which we function as a society. I pay tribute to all those who spend their time working with people from backgrounds that are different from theirs, in terms of either race or faith, to hold our communities and ultimately our nation together.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the overall threat picture shows a very challenging environment. The issues with which we are dealing today relate to someone with no fixed ideology who was clearly vulnerable to terrorism and had a fixation with extreme violence. We see that running alongside the more traditional, well-known and understood elements of extremism, such as Islamist or extreme right-wing terrorism, but even within those better understood forms of extremism, we see that the pattern is changing. It is always evolving and developing, which poses a challenge to all the practitioners who must try to keep up with the way in which extremism is presenting itself in our communities. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that work is as robust as possible, and to taking every possible step to counter extremism in all its forms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her very positive statement. Let me also associate myself with the events of a year ago, when the nation mourned for those three children. I think that every one of us recognised the horror of what took place, and our prayers and our thoughts are very much with the families even today, and especially with the parents. I think that is how we all feel.
This is a very full report, and I commend the author for his determination to ensure that political correctness did not influence it. It is clear that a sea change is required in departments so that they are less concerned about offending people and more concerned about protecting our innocents. What lessons can be learned to inform new procedures to ensure that there is accountability in the intelligence and security services in particular?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is cultural change that is needed, and that is what Sir Adrian Fulford’s initial recommendations in phase 1 were designed to bring about, along with practical measures to change the way in which risk is assessed and ultimately mitigated. The Government will respond fully to those recommendations, and will bring together every part of Government—every part of the state—to ensure that people are doing all that they should be doing to assess risk, because the only factors that matter relate to the risk posed by an individual to other people of significant harm of the type that we have seen in this case. The Government will ensure that that happens in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
There has been much speculation in recent weeks about the state of the Diego Garcia treaty and the associated Bill, and—with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will take this opportunity to update the House.
We have debated at length the critical importance of the military base on Diego Garcia to the national security of the United Kingdom and that of our allies. The base allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability and global trade. It is vital to the countering of terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and overseas.
As the House knows, the operation of the base has been under threat for decades. The Government inherited a situation in which there was no legal certainty for future operations, and the threat of the UK losing our ability to operate effectively for us and our allies was and remains real, as those on the Opposition Benches know full well. The status quo is untenable, and ignoring the situation would have been reckless and irresponsible. The previous Government knew that, which is why they opened negotiations with Mauritius, why they put sovereignty on the table, and why they had 11 rounds of talks and agreed the vast majority of the treaty. [Interruption.] I know the Conservatives do not want to hear this, but it would be better if we had some quiet and I could make the statement.
I am proud that this Government completed the process in May last year. The Diego Garcia treaty puts the base on a secure legal footing for the first time in decades. It gives us complete operational freedom, and puts in place important safeguards to protect the base from outside threats. In short, the treaty ensures the continued contribution of the base to UK national security, and to the security of our allies, for generations.
The Diego Garcia military base was founded as a jointly operated base by the UK and the United States. It is one of the foundation stones on which our close defence and security partnership was built. Of course, the previous Government knew that, which is why they took action to start the negotiations when they did. For that reason, the treaty to protect the base was negotiated in close co-ordination with the United States, under both this and the previous US Administration. The treaty was tested thoroughly at all levels of the United States system under two Administrations, and found to be robust.
Throughout this process, we have always been clear that we could not let the treaty enter into force without US support. We had that support when the treaty was signed, and we have had it consistently since. President Trump called it “very strong” and “powerful”. Secretary Rubio welcomed it as a “historic agreement” that
“secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.
Nothing in the treaty has changed since then, and the United States’ support has been consistent in viewing the agreement as the best means of protecting operations on this vital military asset.
However, the position of the US President appears to have changed in recent weeks. This means that, in practical terms, it has become impossible to agree at political level an update to the 1966 UK-US agreement concerning the availability of defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, known as the exchange of notes, which is necessary to ratify the treaty. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that updates to the exchange of notes are nothing unusual; in fact, they have been updated periodically to ensure that the governance arrangements for the base remain fit for purpose in a changing world. They were updated in 1972, 1976, 1987 and 1999, and were rolled over in 2016. They now need a further update in the light of the Diego Garcia treaty. We have previously debated this issue in this House, and I know that my counterpart, Baroness Chapman, has similarly discussed it in the other place.
Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the Ministry of Defence, have been working with United States counterparts over many months and have made excellent progress in updating the agreement. I can confirm that a finalised text was agreed at official level and is ready for political clearance and signature, but due to the new comments to which I referred, this process will obviously not proceed on the previously agreed timeframe. Because of the delays in agreeing the exchange of notes, the Diego Garcia Bill cannot complete its passage in this parliamentary Session, and it cannot be carried over due to its advanced progression through Parliament. The Government nevertheless remain confident that the Diego Garcia treaty is the best means of protecting the full operation of the military base for us and our allies for future generations. We will continue to work with the United States on the agreement and the way forward, and we will continue to engage closely with Mauritius.
In parallel with the geostrategic developments, there is the human story. I refer to the Chagossians, who have rightly been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members, and who were removed from the archipelago in the 1960s and ’70s. As I have said on many occasions, the Government deeply regret the manner of their removal, and we remain committed to building a relationship with Chagossian communities that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The delay to the treaty will be sad news to many Chagossians—although I accept not all—who rightly see it as the only viable means of a sustainable programme of resettlement, which Mauritius would be able to implement under its terms. As I have said on many occasions, we also want to see the recommencement of the programme of heritage visits, which we understand are so important to Chagossians, particularly to the older generations.
These are times of great uncertainty and acute risk to British interests. Our security and prosperity are under threat at home and overseas, and this is a moment for calm and considered reflection, not cheap political point scoring by Opposition parties—[Interruption.] They are absolutely proving this very point. They would put our security at risk and play reckless games.
The threats facing the future operation of the Diego Garcia base are real, as the Opposition well know, and the Diego Garcia treaty remains the best means of securing the vital military base on the island. We will continue to work with partners, including the United States and Mauritius, to protect our national security and that of our allies. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Let me start my remarks by saying that the Minister has done the right thing by coming to the House to give this statement, rather than being dragged here through an urgent question, and by stating the factual and accurate position that the treaty will not go forward. However, once again he has been left carrying the can for the Prime Minister’s epic failure of statecraft. Labour’s Chagos surrender has been wrong from the start, and instead of making excuses, the right thing to do would have been to tear up this dreadful treaty and commit to keeping Chagos British. The news that the ratification of the treaty is now done and dusted is a humiliation for the Prime Minister and this Government.
Let us be clear: the surrender treaty is Labour’s mess. As the House knows, within days of coming to office, the Prime Minister’s top foreign policy priority was to exceed the wishes of his left-wing lawyer friends and surrender the Chagos islands, at an enormous cost to British taxpayers. He met the Mauritian Prime Minister, appointed Jonathan Powell to conclude the negotiations, and rushed and blundered into the treaty. The Government inexplicably announced it to the world just before Mauritius went into an election. When the Mauritian Government with whom they agreed the deal got kicked out, the new Mauritian Government—guess what?—demanded more concessions from Britain, and Labour rolled over and got eaten for breakfast. The Government put one of our most important defence and security assets at risk. They compromised the special relationship with the United States, they ignored and betrayed the wishes of the Chagossian community, and they were prepared to hand over £35 billion of taxpayers’ money to lease back a land that we own. Then they went ahead with the deal before receiving the critical exchange of notes from the United States.
Having been to the United States recently, I am not in the least surprised that the Administration have sought to stop the deal, because they can see what we have been saying for a long time. It is the Conservatives who have opposed this Labour deal at every turn. While Labour has spectacularly failed to defend British sovereignty and Reform has gone from suggesting that we sell the Chagos islands to the US to suggesting that we give them to the Maldives, the Conservative party has been effectively scrutinising and opposing this surrender at every step of the way, to make sure that we keep Chagos British and that we protect our sovereignty and our taxpayers.
It is the Conservatives who have exposed the full £35 billion cost of the deal. It is the Conservatives who have dismantled Labour’s outrageous and offensive narrative that those who oppose the Chagos surrender are siding with Britain’s adversaries. It is the Conservatives who have brought to the fore the major security concerns about this deal and exposed the fact that Mauritius is deepening its partnerships with Russia, China and Iran. It is the Conservatives who have been pressing the Government for months on their totally inadequate answers about why the anti-nuclear Pelindaba treaty would apply to Diego Garcia. And it is the Conservatives who have supported the Chagossians at every step of the way, given them a voice and spoken up for them.
Our questions and debates in this House and the other place have held Labour to account and forced the Government into the position set out today. Although the surrender and the whole process have now been ripped up, I want to ask the Minister some fundamental questions. The Mauritian Government have announced that a UK delegation is going to Mauritius later this month. Will the Minister tell us who is going, and what is the purpose? What will they be negotiating? Is there a new timetable? What is actually going to happen?
We also know that Mauritius has budgeted to receive the surrender payments from the British Government, so can the Minister confirm that no payments will be made to Mauritius as a result of what he has announced today? Will the Labour Government commit to spending the money that they were planning to ship to Mauritius on boosting defence spending at this critical time, which is exactly what the British taxpayer wants? It should now be clearly allocated for the purpose of this fundamental resource.
Can the Minister confirm in no uncertain terms that as long as the US opposes this deal, Labour will not seek in any way to reinstate it? On the Chagossians, if the islands stay British, is it the Government’s intention to look at resettlement options? Will the Minister rule out any new legislation in the next Session, even if it is not in the King’s Speech, so that the surrender treaty cannot become operable? The only Bill that the Government should take forward in the next Session is my original Bill to make sure that Chagos remains British.
Stephen Doughty
I will start by thanking the right hon. Lady, who has rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this matter over many months. I have come dutifully to answer many questions, I have met with her privately, and the subject has been scrutinised by many Committees. It was right to update the House today on these developments, and I am glad that she acknowledges that point.
Of course, it is not for the Government simply to choose easy paths. It is for the Government to choose the right path: the path that is in the interests of Britain and our national security, and that of our allies. At the heart of this is a fundamental question. The Opposition know that there is a huge challenge. They knew that there was a problem, which is why they started the process. Throughout all the exchanges we have had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.
I cannot recall a time when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. It is regrettable that the official Opposition and indeed the Reform party—I see that only one of its Members has turned up today—have been at the heart of this. Of course, they will say that this is just politics and that the Government should be thick-skinned, but quite frankly the British public deserve better.
The national interest is what drives this Government and our national security, as the Conservatives well knew, which is why they started the process. We have seen frankly ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats that it faced, and about the security provisions in the treaty, which of course we strengthened. We also seen it about the costs: no matter how often they give false figures, that does not make them any more accurate. We have also seen it about the views of Chagossians—I accept that they are wide and varied but, conveniently, the Opposition always ignore the views of the significant numbers of Chagossian communities and groups who feel very differently about the treaty and have supported it since the start. Indeed, we have seen it about the protection of the environment.
The Opposition operate in a state of convenient amnesia, but they know the reality, they knew the jeopardy facing the base and they know that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements and in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. They know, too, that the treaty signed by this Government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. As ever, the Opposition cannot run away fast enough from their record in government when it suits their tiresome politicking. The British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy, and they deserve better.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for working over many months with our allies on this issue to reach agreement in our national interest and theirs. He has remained consistent on this issue and has given many updates on it. I wish I could say the same about the Opposition. Their short memory, their flip-flopping and their complete disregard for national security are very similar to the position they have got themselves in with Iran—very, very similar. They are laughing in the face of real threats to our national security.
I am actually quite concerned, because it seems to me that the status quo is not in our national interest. What does being without a treaty mean for the long-term access to the base, for us and for our allies?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend sets out the fundamental issue: the risks to the operation of the base, which the Opposition knew all along. That is why they started the process, to which we have responded with this treaty, which protects our security and that of our allies. I will not speculate about the coming of those risks, but we know that we need to put things on a secure footing. We know that the treaty was the best way to do that. We know that this was agreed under two Administrations across the United States in an inter-agency process. We continue to believe that it is the right way forward, and we will announce our business in the usual way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I genuinely thank the Minister for his statement, for advance sight of it, and for his long engagement with me on these issues.
The process for negotiating this treaty has been, I am sorry to say, utterly shambolic, from its beginning under the previous Government to its demise under this one. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, an hon. and gallant Gentleman says, “Why did we finish it?” I am sorry to tell him that they did not. There is no evidence at all that this statement was finished by the previous Government.
As this Government shelve the legislation, they must now reckon with the litany of failures that have plagued the process, specifically their inability to secure fundamental legal guarantees from the US through the necessary exchange of letters; their reluctance to adopt measures that would enable genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the planned vast sums of money that would be sent to the Government of Mauritius; and their wilful reluctance to work with or to secure the rights of Chagossians, including but not limited to the right of return to the Chagos islands.
Aside from the Government’s apparent ignorance of the legal prerequisites for the passage of the treaty, the most objectionable aspect of the process has been the woeful engagement with the Chagossian community. The British state has long denied Chagossians a meaningful say in their own future. The provisions of this treaty, shamefully, failed again to affirm those rights, so if the treaty ever does return to this House, the Government would do well to observe and understand the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place to secure genuine rights for Chagossians and help to buck the historical trend of that community being left out of decisions about its own future.
I have one very simple question for the Minister. Given that the Government have now abandoned their proposed deal with Mauritius over the Chagos islands, can the Foreign Secretary set out what this means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians? Will the Government now commit to supporting resettlement under continued UK sovereignty? If so, how does the Minister assess the implications of that return for the evidential and legal basis underpinning the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion?
In conclusion, British citizens physically located on the islands would constitute a resident population who would be—
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for his continued engagement in good faith throughout the process. I can absolutely assure him that in due course we will return to the issues that he and his colleagues discussed with us and the concerns that they expressed in amendments in this place and the other House, but I have to reject his assumption that the process has somehow met its demise. It has not been abandoned. We have always been clear about the need for agreement on the US-UK exchange of notes. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Chapman in the other place on 18 November:
“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 713.]
We have always been clear about the processes that need to be followed in parallel. It is regrettable that there has been a delay and that we have run out of time in this parliamentary Session, but the facts have not changed as to the need for the treaty or the need for the processes and legal provisions to be put in place.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises concerns about the Chagossians. He and I have discussed those concerns on a number of occasions. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities. There are a range of views in the community; there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by the delay with the treaty, not least for the very reason to which he refers, which is that we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement. I re-emphasise our commitment to restarting, at an appropriate time, the heritage visits, which are so important. The hon. Gentleman will understand why the current situation does not allow that, but we will seek to do so at the earliest opportunity. We know how important it is, particularly for heritage reasons.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The test of bad legislation is always whether it contains carte blanche Henry VIII powers—in this case in a thin and flimsy Bill—that grant the Government the right to do anything they like with the legislation, even after it has passed. That made it a dog of a Bill, but now the Government have paused it—or returned it, or U-turned, or whatever they are calling it. The Chagossians’ rights lie at the heart of this matter, so can I take the Minister back to the statement he made about the Chagossians? He talked about them wanting to come to some conclusion about their ability to return to the islands. The BIOT Supreme Court ruled that section 9 of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, which barred the right of abode to Chagossians, was illegal, so why have the Government mounted an appeal against that, to ensure that it is illegal for them to go to their islands? Does he think the Chagossians have no right to go to the islands, or that they do have a right? Which is it?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly familiar with the history, so he will know the judgments in the courts of England and Wales on the matter of the right of abode. I am not going to comment on ongoing legal proceedings, save to say that we were disappointed by the position that was taken. Our understanding is that the BIOT is appealing that judgment and we have taken an interest in that matter.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister talks about convenient amnesia, but he did not go back to discuss what the previous Labour Government did. All the way back in 2008, Gordon Brown met Navinchandra Ramgoolam, when he was the Prime Minister of Mauritius for the first time, and agreed to establish a dialogue on the British Indian Ocean Territory. The first official meetings took place in January 2009—Wednesday the 14th, to be precise—and the topic of sovereignty was discussed. I appreciate that the Minister might not have the details to hand, so he is welcome to write to me, but will he outline exactly what discussions took place with the previous Government, up to the end of their time in 2010, that set the conditions for the subsequent ICJ appeal that Mauritius put in following that discussion?
Stephen Doughty
I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter, but what I am absolutely clear about is that it was his Government who started the process of negotiations, under the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who conceded the principle of sovereignty and conceded a financial element, and did not put in place some of the key security provisions that we were able to secure in the negotiations. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The US navy began a blockade of Iran at 2 pm this afternoon. Has the US been granted permission by the British Government for the use of the deepwater port at Diego Garcia as a staging post for the imposition of that blockade?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on operational details from the Dispatch Box, but the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about which requests from the United States have been acceded to and which ones have not. He answered an extensive statement on that this afternoon, and I hope that that suffices.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for confirming that this Parliament has not ratified the treaty. As Parliament and the British public heard more about the deal, one of the things they found most inexplicable was that it involved us paying a substantial amount of money—how much has not yet been confirmed to Parliament—to the Mauritian Government. Will the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box today that, because Parliament has not ratified the deal, he will not be paying any money to the Mauritian Government?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady asks an important question and, to be fair, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked it too. I can absolutely confirm that the costs associated with the treaty cannot be paid without the relevant legislation being passed, so she is absolutely right on that point. What I will say is that there has been wilful misinformation from a number of quarters on the costs associated with the deal. We published the forecast costs and the methodology used when we presented the treaty. We have answered questions on that many, many times, and the fact is that the costs associated with it are simply not what is being presented by the Opposition Front Bench—or indeed other parties in this place—particularly compared with, for example, what France pays for its base in Djibouti. This is 15 times larger, with immeasurably more capability, and we are not going to scrimp when it comes to the national security of this country.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Another day in this Parliament, another chaotic U-turn. I thank the Minister for being the latest to make the long walk from No. 10 to over here to announce said U-turn, and thank the one, solitary Labour MP who could be encouraged to stand up for the Government. I accept that the Tories made a mess of this, but I have to say that the excuse given by the Minister—that Donald Trump’s unpredictability was something that could not be foreseen—is something people will find very difficult to believe. On that lack of foresight, this is a serious issue and I know that the Minister treats it seriously, so will he tell us how much money has been wasted on this so far, what the implications are for national security, and what the implications are for the international rules-based system and the rights of the Chagossians who have been caught in the middle of this sad, sorry mess?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman raises many, many issues. The situation is clear for all to see. I have set out why the legislation is not able to make the progress we had hoped it would make in this parliamentary Session, but the merits of the deal and the need to secure the base for us and our allies stay unchanged. As I said, we are not going to scrimp on national security. When it comes to these capabilities, we will do what is right and in the interests of the British people.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on so valiantly trying to explain the inexplicable and reconcile the irreconcilable. I do not want to detain the House by quoting the whole Monty Python dead parrot sketch, but this is now an ex-treaty; it is no more; it has shuffled off its mortal coil.
Coming back to the Chagossians, why can the Government not just honour what the Court has decided about the right of return? Why are they now trying to frustrate the survival and safety of the Chagossians who have returned, taken there by my good friend and former Conservative MP Adam Holloway, who has organised the expedition despite the Government? Why are the Government now mounting operations and sending police officers and customs operators to frustrate the process of safety equipment going to the expedition to support the Chagossians? Why have they blocked a water purifier and even medical supplies? They have blocked a fast boat that would provide emergency evacuation, so these people are more at risk as a result of the Government. Is that the Government’s policy, after all the wrongs that have been done to the Chagossians?
Stephen Doughty
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he is simply wrong on this point about the Chagossians. The reality is that there is a range of views within the Chagossian communities. I have taken them incredibly seriously, including those who do not agree with the treaty. There are many who do agree with it. I am afraid that the incident he refers to, in terms of the illegal arrivals on Peros Banhos—
Stephen Doughty
They are illegal and they are not appropriate; it is a dangerous environment and it is not appropriate for them to be on there. We are disappointed by the judgment that was made. The BIOT is appealing that judgment. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to provide him with a list of items that were sought to be provided on that island, I think he would be quite shocked. I am sure he would agree with me that it is not appropriate to have a drone flying on those islands, or other items that are not necessary. This is a dangerous and unsafe environment. Quite frankly, I am astounded that the Opposition, and the other party with one representative in the Chamber, are attempting to support people arriving illegally by boats on an island that is not safe for them. That is, quite frankly, extraordinary.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement and commend the Minister for the way that he has framed it. He has been absolutely spectacular, if I may say so, over the months in trying to defend the indefensible, as indeed he has been today with this U-turn on steroids. May I press him on the matter of money? He has been Delphic in his response to two of my hon. Friends on the demands that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will be making of this Government, given this utter mess and the fact that spending plans were already being made on the back of the largesse that the Minister had been talking about. Will he confirm that not a penny piece will be passed to Mauritius in either payments or in compensation, now that the treaty has gone the way of the apocryphal Norwegian Blue, and tell us what legal notes have been passed between the two Governments, given that plainly this thing is now not going to be happening, in relation to moneys in compensation that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will now be demanding of the UK?
Stephen Doughty
I answered that question very clearly a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin).
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office be consulted, and will the British Chagossians be brought into the discussion prior to the mission on 22 April? Will a British Chagossian be accepted on to the actual delegation, so that they will be represented? Will the Government be speaking to the Chagossians who have just come on the boat? Its seems to be the only small boat the Government are interested in stopping. Will they actually be helping, rather than hindering?
Stephen Doughty
On the hon. Lady’s last point, I am sure she can see the absurdity of what she and others appear to be supporting. This is a dangerous political stunt that is putting lives at risk. It is not safe or proper to be on those islands. We are very clear about that; we have communicated that very clearly. Obviously, the BIOT Administration will take whatever steps they deem necessary under their laws and administration to ensure adherence to their laws and the safety and security of individuals. I am genuinely astounded that people would support this action, which is putting lives at risk and is deeply irresponsible.
On the wider questions about the Chagossians, I have been clear throughout that there are a range of views within the communities, including the British Chagossian communities. I have met them and heard those views, including difficult views from people who do not agree with us on this issue; I am not afraid to do that, and neither are the Government. It would not be practical to take just one person as representing a whole community. We have sought to ensure that the voices of Chagossians are heard throughout this process, such as in the proposed trust fund, by securing places on the board. As I have set out on a number of occasions, we will continue to engage with all Chagossian communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that if they were not present at the beginning of the statement, they will not be called.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
This process is, among other things, about protecting British access to the communications spectrum. That is why the previous Government started it, and why the current Government are carrying it on. If we are not able to pass the treaty and ensure that access, what is plan B?
Stephen Doughty
I have set out on a number of occasions very clearly the risks to the operation of the base; they were well understood by the Opposition, in particular by those who served as Ministers in the previous Government. It has consistently staggered me that the Opposition attempt to gloss over all of that, as well as the risks posed to our operations and the capabilities that keep us and our allies safe. I think they will look on the political point scoring they have been doing with regret in future years.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I doubt whether many people across the nation are watching the Parliament channel at the moment to see this statement. The Minister started off saying that this space is critical to our national security, allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability in global trade, is vital for countering terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and abroad. Anyone watching this debate might then ask why the devil, if we owned it, we were giving it back to the Mauritian Government to then lease it for £35 billion from a Government who are more interested in some of the states that are hostile to our interests in the area. Does the Minister not agree that if the nation is listening to this debate, it will be totally confused, or else think that this must be one of the most incompetent Governments ever?
Stephen Doughty
I simply must thoroughly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our national security and that of our allies has been paramount in putting forward this treaty and this deal to secure the Diego Garcia base not only for us, but for our allies and our Five Eyes partners. That is why they all welcomed it. It is why the treaty has gone through extensive processes in this country, in the United States and with other partners. I will not apologise for that. The duty of this Government is to protect the people of this country, our partners and our allies. That is exactly why we have proceeded on this basis and why this treaty is needed.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have two questions to the Minister, if I may. I welcome the retreat from this Bill and this deal, which ill served the taxpayer and our national interest. First, are the Government now officially withdrawing the Bill, rather than merely pausing its passage through Parliament? Secondly, the Minister was very clear earlier that no payment would be made under the treaty to Mauritius. Can he confirm that no goodwill payment, ex gratia payment or any other payment will be made to Mauritius outside of the treaty as a way of saying sorry? Frankly, we have nothing to say sorry for.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have affection, understands the procedures of this place. He understands that the Bill is going to time out because of the upcoming Prorogation and that it cannot be carried over because of the progress that it has made during this Session; he will understand the procedures around that. It is disappointing that we saw so much game-playing around the Bill, particularly from the other place. That is the position. I have also set out the position on the costs.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I very much welcome the Government’s withdrawal of the Bill. I have two questions about the future commitment of this country to the Chagossian people and the Chagos islands. First, will the Government commit that if there is to be any future constitutional change to the status of the islands, the Chagossian community here in the UK will be given the chance to express its view through a referendum of that community? My second question relates to the heroic landing by my friend and new fellow Reform member, Adam Holloway, who made the brave journey to Reform, as well as journeying to the Chagos islands with a group of islanders. I remind the Minister that those people were forcibly removed from their homes by a Labour Government in the 1970s. The infrastructure that they left behind is now descending into jungle. Why will the Government not recognise that they have a right of abode there, and why are the Government frustrating the very legitimate efforts of philanthropists to support them to re-establish their community?
Stephen Doughty
Again, I am genuinely shocked that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed his party as a whole, would support a reckless political stunt of this nature and promote arrival on an island that is not suitable for human habitation, with lives being put at risk. That he and his party would support and encourage people to be put in that position is, quite frankly, shameful and absurd, given their commentary on other issues in relation to irregular migration. I find it absolutely astounding. I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman here.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. There have been many discussions over the amount of money that was going to be paid, and the methodology and how it was reached. I am prepared to park those discussions on the basis that provision has indeed been made in the Government’s budget lines to pay for this treaty, which is now in abeyance. For the time that it is in abeyance, can the Minister tell us that 100% of the amount that would have been paid to Mauritius will now go into the defence budget and pay for hard power?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman well knows that I am not part of the Treasury team, and it is not for me to respond to those points. In the interim, we remain responsible for the BIOT Administration, as well as the long-standing arrangements between us and the United States regarding the crucial operations on the base. The hon. Gentleman is aware, as I have set out on many occasions, of the priceless value of the capabilities there. That is why we set out this treaty and this deal as the best way to secure those capabilities.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Minister was asked a very precise question by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). That question was this: outside of any monetary obligations under the treaty, will a single penny be paid to Mauritius going forward? It is a very simple question. It is nothing to do with the treaty; the treaty is gone in that sense. Outside of any obligations under the treaty, will there be a single penny paid to Mauritius? Surely the Minister can answer that question, rather than continuing to dodge it.
Stephen Doughty
We have relationships with many different countries around the world, including through our ODA programmes, through different multilateral programmes, and through our investments and all sorts of things that are in the British national interest. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the costs associated with this treaty cannot be paid without the treaty. I have been clear about that from the beginning. He can impugn it all he likes, but those are the facts.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for outlining the reality of where we are today. I think it is important that we understand what this means. The Minister has also made clear the failings. There were Chagossians who asked us to retain control of the islands due to human rights considerations and other issues. While the future of the treaty is uncertain, what will the Government and the Minister do to engage with those who are disenfranchised and uncertain due to the treaty failure?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will of course continue to engage with the Chagossian communities, including with those who disagree; I am absolutely committed to that, as I have been throughout. As I have said, there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by this delay. I think it is important that their views are understood and respected, as well as the views of those who oppose this treaty.
North Atlantic Submarine Activity
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on north Atlantic activity. Let me begin by thanking the many members of our armed forces who are currently deployed in over 30 operations across the globe. Their efforts are often unseen by the British people, but they are always appreciated. They defend the very freedoms that we enjoy.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary revealed details of one such operation. While the focus of many has been drawn to the middle east, UK armed forces, in partnership with our allies, have been deployed to deter the increased Russian activity that we have witnessed in the Atlantic. The specific operation involved a Russian Akula-class submarine and a concurrent deployment of two specialist submarines from GUGI—Russia’s main directorate of deep-sea research.
Last November, the Defence Secretary outlined to the House how GUGI vessels, including the spy ship Yantar, are directed by President Putin to engage in hybrid warfare activities against the UK and its allies, specifically around critical undersea infrastructure. Their mission is to survey pipelines and cables during peacetime and then potentially, if required, sabotage them in conflict.
In response to the Russian subsurface activity, the Defence Secretary deployed a Royal Navy warship and a Royal Air Force P8 aircraft alongside allies and partners to ensure that the Russian vessel was monitored during every phase of the operation. The Akula subsequently retreated home, having been closely tracked throughout, and we continued to monitor the two GUGI submarines when they were in and around UK waters and, of course, beyond. Our armed forces left them in no doubt that they were being monitored, that their movements were not covert as planned, and that their attempted secret operation had been exposed. The two GUGI submarines have now left UK waters and headed back north, and this operation, which lasted more than a month, has now concluded.
In often treacherous conditions, our pilots racked up over 450 flying hours and our frigates sailed several thousand nautical miles. Some 500 British personnel were involved in the response. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to every single person involved.
We exposed this military operation undertaken by Russia for three key reasons: first, to send a message to Putin that he failed to remain covert, and that any attempt to damage critical undersea infrastructure will not be tolerated and cannot be denied; secondly, to demonstrate that even with significant capabilities and personnel deployed in the middle east, we will always do what is necessary to protect our homeland; and thirdly, to highlight a significant operation carried out by our armed forces, who met this challenge with the characteristic determination and professionalism that we all know too well.
This operation reminds us why the seabed matters, especially for the island nation of Britain: it connects us to everything, and that connection is sustained beneath our waters without interruption through a vast network of cables and pipelines on which much of our way of life relies—much of the gas that heats our homes, 99% of international telecoms and data traffic, and trillions of pounds of global trade each day. Because the seabed matters to us, it is a prime target for our adversaries.
The UK’s undersea network is highly resilient, but the threats are increasing, so we are stepping up our action to defend it, including by providing an extra £100 million for our vital P8 submarine-hunting aircraft; launching our Atlantic Bastion programme to combine the latest autonomous technologies with the best warships and aircraft to create a British-built hybrid naval force; and making the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, after years of hollowing-out and underfunding by various Governments. The threat is clear, and our resolve to confront it is absolute. That is why this year we are deploying our carrier group where it is most needed—the north Atlantic and the High North—and supporting NATO’s new mission, Arctic Sentry.
I want to put on the record our thanks to our allies, with whom we have co-operated closely throughout this operation, including Norway. Our shared commitment to confront Russian aggression in the north Atlantic is at the heart of our Lunna House agreement, and together we are now building a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and new uncrewed systems.
Let me say a few words on Ukraine, from where I returned just last week. Today, two wars on two continents are being fought at the very same time. Putin wants us distracted while he steps up strikes on Ukraine relentlessly, and indeed at enormous scale, with around 7,000 attacks a day on the front line and 55,000 drone and missile strikes last year alone. We must always remember our duty to Ukraine and recognise that Russian aggression is growing across Europe once again.
Let me finish where I began, with praise for our people. We have the very finest armed forces that a nation could hope for. They are second to none. As I speak, we have personnel deployed across every domain, every moment of the day, in every part of the world. They are in constant confrontation with our adversaries, from the depths of the seabed to the reaches of space. When a crisis erupts, as it has done in the middle east, I understand people questioning why all UK military assets and personnel have not been sent to deal with it. But as demands on defence rise, we must deploy our resources to best effect across multiple priorities.
Because of our increase in defence investment, we will be able to call on more and more resources in the coming years. As we defend our interests and partners in the middle east, we will tackle increasing threats in the High North. We will stand with Ukraine. We will meet our NATO obligations. Above all, we will always fulfil the first duty of government: to protect our homeland and keep the British people safe. I commend this statement to the House.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. With all eyes on the middle east, let us not forget that Russia remains the most acute, persistent and active threat to the United Kingdom. Putin’s goal of conquering Ukraine is unchanged, and that continues to place our entire European continent in jeopardy. His ongoing nefarious activity, most notably in our own territorial waters, should be a stark wake-up call. We must start acting on the threats that are visible and right in front of us.
We may be critical of the Government’s tortoise-like approach to giving defence what it needs—slow and steady does not win this race, and it certainly does not keep us safe—but what does unite us is the full-throated support for the men and women of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, who keep the wolf at bay in these dangerous times. I pay particular tribute to all those who are serving in the middle east at the moment, those who served in recent Atlantic operations, and especially those who crew our continuous at-sea deterrent patrols, 24/7, 365 days a year, every year.
When the Secretary of State came to this House last year to highlight the actions of the Russian spy vessel Yantar, he told Putin:
“we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1016.]
That was the right message, but at some point simply saying “We see you” is not enough. Words must be backed by action.
This is not just a question of traditional defence. There is a growing and under-appreciated threat to our national resilience and our way of life. Just 65 undersea cables carry 99% of global communication, and a far smaller number of pipelines and interconnectors link our gas and electricity supplies to others. Can the Minister guarantee that there are no hostile devices, kinetic or otherwise, on, near or underneath any of those cables, pipelines or interconnectors? The reality is that he cannot. The Secretary of State said with confidence that there was no sabotage on this occasion, but what of the many other incidents in UK waters—in the Baltic, in the cables running to North America, west of the British Isles, where monitoring capacity is limited at best?
The truth is that we do not fully know how secure our critical underwater infrastructure is. That is why we are dismayed that the much-touted defence readiness Bill has been delayed by a full year. Worse still, at a time that demands cross-party unity, it was deeply disappointing to hear the Prime Minister flatly reject the Leader of the Opposition’s offer of greater engagement earlier today. That was the wrong call.
On Russia’s shadow fleet, when the Prime Minister announced on 25 March that British forces would be permitted to board sanctioned vessels transiting UK waters, we rightly supported that decision. The Chief of the Defence Staff, when asked at the recent London Defence Conference, said plainly, “We are ready”. Yet no action has been taken. We set a red line, and we have watched Russia repeatedly cross it. Worse, Russian military vessels are now accompanying shadow fleet ships, deliberately escalating the situation. This is deterrence in reverse.
The Minister and I know better than anyone else in this Chamber the very real challenges of boarding vessels at sea, and the serious legal questions surrounding what happens to a ship and its crew once the decision to seize them is made. These are the same challenges that I faced while serving in the Royal Marines and boarding pirate vessels off the coast of Somalia. Back then, those legal and logistical hurdles were just as real, but it was clear that the global economy was being directly impacted by piracy and that we had to act, so we found a lawful way to do so. Why can we not do that now, when the situation is far more grave?
It has been reported that the Attorney General has denied the legal basis for interdiction. If that is the case, let me ask the Minister this directly: what is the Government’s current position? Can he tell the House how many sanctioned vessels have transited UK waters unchecked? Russia is brazenly moving military supplies through our waters. That must be met with robust action, not statements.
Today’s statement is a start, but only a start. It is clear that the Government are not moving fast enough to deter our adversaries. Deterrence requires capability, and capability requires funding. I know that the Minister has not had sight of the defence investment plan, but can he at least tell the country when it will be published? Seven months delayed, it is simply becoming a farce. Does he agree with the Conservatives and the Defence Committee that the Government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence within this Parliament, not the next?
The Conservatives have already identified savings that would deliver over £20 billion in additional defence spending. We want to go further, and we renew our offer to work across the aisle to find savings. The choice is simple: if we are serious about deterring Russia and other hostile states from the High North or our overseas bases, we must reach 3% on defence now, not later, and give our armed forces the resources they need to keep us safe.
Al Carns
We can agree that no sabotage took place this time from the Russian sub-surface activity off the coast of the UK. We have backed our words with action when it comes to deterring Russia, with £4.5 billion in UK military support to Ukraine last year and a total of £21.8 billion. The Ukraine defence contact group just raised an astonishing $45 billion to buy weapons, munitions and capability for the Ukrainians. The Ministry of Defence stands ready to board any vessels that meet the criteria—there is a lot of misinformation out there. Having very expensive frigates escorting every vessel at such range is putting significant demands on the Russian fleet and degrading its capabilities. Let me add that we have spent £5 billion extra this year alone on the defence budget, and by 2028-29 we will spend around £73 billion on it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the Defence Secretary for his public statement, which have increased public awareness about the growing threats that our nation faces. On behalf of the Defence Committee, I pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel involved in disrupting the Russian activity around our critical undersea infrastructure. This incident underscores the growing threat that Russia poses, and the need to increase defence investment now and finally to publish the defence investment plan.
Turning to the incident itself, I take on board the Minister’s words, but it has been widely reported, including publicly at the London defence conference, that Putin had explosives planted on our undersea cables. For the record, can he confirm whether Russians were involved in either sabotage or precursors to sabotage on or around our undersea cables?
Al Carns
The reality is that Russia failed on this occasion, and it failed because we exposed its activity, which meant that there was no way, shape or form that it could deny its activity in the first place. I was at the London defence conference and I heard certain discussions about undersea cables. I can confirm that no sabotage took place this time, but the Russians put a lot of effort into mapping and understanding our undersea critical national infrastructure, and we will do everything to map, track and expose it, should it take place.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I associate my party with his thanks and appreciation for the dedicated service of our armed forces personnel around the world.
While the world’s attention was on Trump and Netanyahu’s catastrophic war in Iran, Vladimir Putin was collecting vital information about our critical infrastructure. In response, the Defence Secretary told Putin, for the second time: “We see you.” But we need much greater confidence that the Government have the plan and resolve not just to observe Russia’s activities, but to meet and resist them, should that be required.
As Putin plans for future conflict, our Government appear frozen. Delay and inaction is sapping the confidence of industry and our allies, while enabling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. The Government must remedy these failings as a matter of urgency. Our national security and the sovereignty of our Ukrainian allies demand it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before Parliament is prorogued, and will he publish a plan to raise £20 billion in defence bonds to be spent on urgent projects, including rebuilding our naval capabilities, which are critical for protecting our undersea infrastructure?
The Minister rightly highlighted Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine. Péter Magyar’s spectacular victory in yesterday’s Hungarian elections should unlock European financial support to Ukraine. At just the same time, Donald Trump authorised a suspension of sanctions on Russian energy assets. The Government cannot allow this opportunity to slip, so will the Minister work with EU partners so that the UK’s £30 billion share of the frozen Russian assets in Europe can be sent to Ukraine’s defence alongside the promised €90 billion from the EU, and will he work with colleagues across Government finally to put an end to the scandal of UK companies providing maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal?
Al Carns
I am glad that the Government took a defensive stance on Iran. We were clear that we did not have a legal mandate, there was not a plan and there was no clear end state, and if we are going to put people in harm’s way, we need those three things before we can do so.
While the defence investment plan not has not arrived yet, five classes of ship or submarine are on order or being built, including 13 frigates on order—eight Type 26s and five Type 31s—which is a collaborative effort to ensure that our maritime capability is fit for purpose as threats diversify and increase, in particular in the High North. We are learning the lessons from Ukraine and ensuring that we have the best autonomous capability, and our Atlantic Bastion platform is moving in the right direction. We have worked exceptionally hard, and the Foreign Office is pushing as well, to sanction thousands of Russian individuals, companies and, of course, vessels, to reduce the illegal flow of resource back into Russia, which is funding the illegal and brutal war waged by Putin on Ukraine.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his statement. GUGI has been at work since the 1960s, as I understand it; it has been doing extensive mapping for quite some time. In our report on subsea cables, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy came up with a great many recommendations, with which he will be more than familiar. When it comes to the defence investment plan, may I draw his focus to our recommendation on a sovereign capability in repair ships? Will he promise to look at that or agree to meet me to discuss it?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his really focused question. We have been watching the underwater research programme for years now. We understand exactly what they are up to and why they are up to it. They understand some of the vulnerabilities—I would not say weaknesses—in the west, and they are trying to identify and, indeed, threaten them at a point in time of their choosing. I recognise the report’s recommendation on a sovereign capability to fix cables. We are working with industry and partners, and of course we have a multitude of capabilities within defence that can support the types of operations that may need to take place should anything happen to our undersea cables.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am delighted that the Minister has made this statement, because I have raised this issue a number of times in this place. My constituency looks directly at the High North, and it is off the coast of my constituency that this Russian activity took place—let us make no mistake about it. My constituents find it deeply worrying.
As the Minister himself has admitted, we have only so many surface ships. They are based mostly in Devonport and Portsmouth. The sailing time from the south of England to Orkney, Shetland or my constituency is a matter of days, and we have to move very fast in this situation with Russia. Let us remember history: before the first world war, Winston Churchill and others took the decision to relocate part of the fleet to Invergordon and to Scapa Flow in the Orkneys. Are we quite certain that we are basing the surface ships that we have—we hope we will have more—in the position where they need to be to keep a close eye on the High North and protect our vital strategic interests?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for a really focused question. Part of this problem set is about looking at early warning when systems appear, either in our waters or close to our waters, or indeed close to any critical national infrastructure. That is a multi-domain operation, ranging from space all the way down to other intelligence assets, which gives us very early warning of what is happening, where, when and why, and allows us to pre-position capabilities to meet them, or to ensure that we can understand exactly what they are up to and therefore put in an operation to deter that if required.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I was in Latvia at the weekend, where they very much know what the threat is from Putin and the Russians. I thank the Minister for his statement and the helpful way in which this has been described in public. It is clear that we need to do a lot more to explain to the British public what the threat is from the Russians and how it is getting worse—not least if we are to increase defence expenditure, as I have been advocating in this place for some time, and tough decisions have to be made. We need to have a better programme of education and information to demonstrate how serious a threat Putin and the Russians are to the security of this country.
Al Carns
I completely agree. A more effective and better understood communication and education plan about what those threats really mean to the population is essential. If I were to turn around to the population and say that there was a cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover, people in and around Jaguar Land Rover would be affected and would take notice. If I were to say that the cost of the attack on Jaguar Land Rover was half that of lifting the two-child benefit cap, that would resonate far more widely across the nation. If I were to say that cyber-attacks cost more than £10 billion last year alone, and that the MOD has seen a 50% increase in hostile state attacks, that would start to resonate. We need to ensure that we continue to communicate that narrative in the easiest way, but also that it resonates with every section of society. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Over decades, the backbone of our ability to detect Russian submarines has been provided by our towed array patrol ships, from Leander right the way through to our increasingly decrepit Type 23. Does the Minister agree that the logic of what he has said, given that the threat has increased significantly over the past several months and over the past couple of years, is that we should be looking again at the orders for eight Type 26s with 2087 towed array on the back of them, and upgrade that to deal with the threat that we now face? Where we are now is not where we were a few short years ago, when that order book for eight Type 26s was constructed.
Al Carns
I recognise the right hon. Member’s experience in this space. I would say that eight Type 26 towed array frigates is the right level. I would like to see our ability to cover the ocean expanded through the use of autonomy and some of the lessons that we have learned from Ukraine. That is why I talk about the Atlantic Bastion; major capability platforms matched with mass uncrewed systems will provide us with a far more effective way to find, deter and neutralise subsurface threats in the future.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I join the Minister in thanking our armed forces personnel who identified this threat and allowed us to take the action he has described. I note that real-terms defence spending fell by 22% in the eight years or so prior to 2017. It is this Government that are turning that around with fresh investment and more co-operation with the sector. We know that our undersea infrastructure is vulnerable to a great many threats and, as we face threats on a number of different fronts, we must not lose sight of that. We have a job, however, to explain to the British public why we need this investment. Can I encourage him, when or if we face a similar threat in the future, to make sure that the public understand that? It is a choice that might mean that we do not have the opportunity to spend in other areas of public life.
Al Carns
We have a job to ensure that we communicate with and educate the population on the whole variety of threats, whether it is the threat posed by Russia in Ukraine or the threat emanating from the High North that comes into the Atlantic. A lot of people say that we do not have a frontline with the Russians. The reality is that we do; it sits in the north Atlantic. But those are not the only threats. There are also threats in the influence space and, of course, in cyber-space, which we must compete with while also responding to contingency operations in the middle east, as hon. Members have seen us do over the last seven weeks.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister said, I think about three weeks ago, that the Royal Navy would go after sanctioned Russian tankers. Yet, if the press reports are to be believed, those very same sanctioned Russian tankers have sailed with impunity through the English channel. My question is this: why have we not done anything? Is there some legal bar, or is there a practical bar when it comes to Royal Navy resources to mount interdiction operations in the English channel?
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Government rightly continue to defend our people, interests and allies in the middle east, we must never lose sight of the war in Europe and our determination to always stand with Ukraine during this conflict?
Al Carns
I completely agree, and the key phrase is “never lose sight”. There have been more than a million casualties—Russia has taken more casualties than America took in the entire second world war—55,000 drones and missiles have been fired in the last year, thousands of tanks have been destroyed, and cities have been plunged into poverty, into the cold, with no lights and no hospital services across an entire nation. Why? All to support an individual’s ambition to rewrite history and rewrite international borders through the use of brutal force. Unacceptable.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Back in February, former Royal Navy officers and other expert witnesses warned the Defence Committee that although tapping an undersea cable is very difficult, they are vulnerable to sabotage, and more than three quarters of the UK’s natural gas is imported via undersea pipelines from Norway. Given Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, does the UK not need to press ahead faster with the Atlantic Bastion initiative? In light of recent defence budget pressures, can the Minister confirm whether funding levels are adequate to maintain long-term submarine detection and tracking capabilities?
Al Carns
I respect the hon. Member’s insight into this issue, especially given his constituency. Atlantic Bastion is moving forward fast; we are using some of the requirements and the needs in the middle east to see what we can test and trial. We are pushing forward as fast as we can. Taking the lessons from Ukraine and ensuring that they are inculcated into what we are doing in the slightly rougher and bigger seas in the north Atlantic is an exceptional challenge, but we are moving forward as fast as we can to do it. When combined with our Type 26 fleet, between us, Norway and hopefully others we will have one of the most effective counter-submarine fleets in the world.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
It was a privilege recently to spend a week at Camp Viking with our Royal Marines, seeing at first hand the work they are doing to defend the High North. Does the Minister agree that it is clear strategically that the security of the High North and of the north Atlantic are intrinsically linked because of the sea lanes, the data cables and the presence of the Russian northern fleet around the Kola peninsula? Alongside the carrier group, can he set out what else we will be doing as a nation to protect the Arctic and our interests and allied interests there, not only to diminish and constrain Putin’s war machine, but to protect access to the north Atlantic?
Al Carns
As my hon. Friend will know, we have the carrier group deploying up there. That will be a NATO exercise with a multitude of different assets attached, running through all sorts of mission rehearsals and deterrent operations. On top of that, we have had international engagement with our joint expeditionary force partners, and that will increase over time—and of course we have 1,500 exceptionally effective Marines deployed in the High North, protecting our NATO flank and our allies and partners.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can we be absolutely clear from this statement, which I very much commend for its candour and bluntness, that these two GUGI submarines have now left UK waters? They were carrying out hostile acts in UK waters, and I cannot believe that many people in the MOD are happy with the limp-wristed response of the rest of the Government to this episode. Has the ambassador been summoned for a public dressing down? Have we expelled any Russian diplomats in retaliation? Are we making it clear to our Russian adversaries that if they mess in our territorial waters, we will demand their immediate surrender, and that they should surface and be escorted to a British port or we will open fire, or at least fire a warning shot? Just saying, “We see you,” is not going to be enough. That is not going to bother President Putin one jot, and he will carry on doing exactly what he is doing until we are prepared to escalate this and show that we are prepared to deter what he is doing to our country.
Al Carns
I can confirm that the submarines were not within the 12 nautical miles of UK territorial waters, and the hon. Member will know that the rules of the sea have all sorts of rules and regulations around the use of force. We have been watching and observing those vessels, and calling this out and telling the world exactly what they are up to actually reduces their ability to do something and then deny it and blame it on someone else, which in itself is probably the most effective deterrence that we have done.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
While the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) talks down our Royal Navy, I think the House is today united in praising it for its work to deter Russian activity at deep sea. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that, through Atlantic Bastion and the emerging defence SMEs, defence companies should get the finance they need to be able to thrive and protect our deep-sea assets?
Al Carns
I know that my hon. Friend is exceptionally passionate about this, as am I. I fully support our Royal Navy activity in the High North, and I also expect that as we move forward with big capability procurements, SMEs will get a fair showing to ensure that we can capitalise on the entrepreneurial spirit that is driving what is a technological revolution in Ukraine. We have done thousands of contracts, and there will be thousands more, but we also have a really difficult challenge on our hands. New technology in Ukraine is driving change faster than ever before. Capabilities that were ordered previously may have to have their roles changed or adapted. Indeed, some of the capability we have now is outdated and needs to be replaced. That complexity is why the defence investment plan is taking time, but it will come, and when it does, it will be fantastic.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I hope to give the Minister a focused question. He has rightly laid out the importance of the data cables to the UK as an island, and also highlighted Russia’s continued activity over many decades. The frigates that we have in the Royal Navy are really the centrepiece of the anti-submarine war, so my short, focused question is: how many frigates could we put to sea tomorrow?
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Russia is in our seas and undermining our North sea cables. It is on social media spreading myths and disinformation. It is even in our politics: we must remember that the former Reform leader in Wales is currently serving time in prison for accepting Russian bribes. Members across the House recognise the ever-present threat that Russia poses to this country, but I am not sure that the public are always quite as aware of the scale and presence of Russia as it affects our society at every level. I thank the Minister for coming to the House today and updating us on what has been going on. It is really important that we expose what Russia is up to. Can I urge him to work with colleagues across Government to ensure that we continue to expose Russia wherever it is attacking us?
Al Carns
Yes, there is a physical threat from Russian submarines, Russian surface ships, bombers and the war in Ukraine, but there is actually a more subversive threat—one that is based on the influence on the hearts and minds of our nation and on the political divide of our nation. That is why we have seen members of some parties do over 10 years in prison because of their connections to the Russian regime. In some of those areas, I and my ministerial colleagues are now working exceptionally hard to quantify what that threat looks like from a cyber and influence perspective, and then to put measures in place to neutralise it, so that democracy can thrive.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I join the hon. and gallant Minister in paying tribute to our armed forces. After the Defence Secretary gave a press conference calling out this operation, Russia said that it posed no threat to undersea infrastructure. I asked this question when the Minister responded to an urgent question back in November after lasers were fired at RAF pilots by Russia: why has the Russian ambassador not been summoned by the Foreign Office, given this clear threat to our national security?
Al Carns
We regularly make clear to our Russian counterparts what they are up to and what is happening, and ensure that the severity of their activities is explained to them. The idea that Russia poses no threat to our critical national infrastructure is fundamentally wrong. The reason for Russia’s mapping it and trying to understand it is to find a gap, develop capabilities and, at a time of its choosing, perhaps use them. We acknowledge that we are watching. We have clear indicators and warnings, and I have complete assurance in our armed forces’ ability to deter it.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that the RAF’s investment in the P-8 submarine hunting programme was made in 2015, at a time when Russian activity in the north Atlantic was much less of a threat to the UK. I welcome the £100 million announced just now, but that is less than one third of the cost of one of those aircraft, so can I ask him what assessment he has made of the P-8 submarine hunting capability in the light of the increased Russian activity? Will he assure the House that he will go further if the RAF needs him to?
Al Carns
That is a fantastic question. The Nimrod capability was taken out of service many years ago. The P-8 programme is a huge success. Many other allies and partners use those same aircraft. When we combine that with some of the best frigates and the best Navy personnel, and with our subsurface capability, that multi-domain spectrum of finding submarines and tracking them is second to none. A £100 million investment has gone into the P-8 programme. Of course we will ensure that that money is spent wisely on maintenance, and other gaps if required, and we will spend more if there are issues with the P-8 programme in the future. It is the frontline of our deterrence and indicator network.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
This incident highlights the need to move at pace to scale up our hybrid naval capabilities, so will the Minister commit to do so, drawing on the strengths of north-east industry?
Al Carns
A country without a navy has destroyed, or rendered irrelevant, one of the biggest fleets in the world, the Black sea fleet. The lessons that we can learn from the hybrid activity in Ukraine are some of the most important ones for our island nation, and we will ensure that they are inculcated and integrated into our major capability platforms to ensure that we have a high-low mix of hardware and sophisticated software combined into fantastic high-end systems such as the Type 26 frigate.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
First, I pay tribute to the dedication and bravery of our armed forces, and in particular to the many members of our armed forces involved in this operation who are based at RAF Lossiemouth in the Poseidon fleet, and those in the Typhoons who provide quick reaction alert from Lossiemouth. They are on the frontline in our defensive operations and in protecting the integrity of our defence against Russia.
The point that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made about the threat of Russian vessels in the north Atlantic growing is really important. There is an advantage to basing more vessels in the north of these isles, and there are plenty of ports around Scotland that could accommodate that. Will the Minister give that serious consideration?
Al Carns
We have a multitude of indicators and warnings that highlight when threats come into our areas of interest. When they do, we make sure that we mobilise capability to meet and deter that threat. I think all parties realise the absolute centrality of Scotland within our defensive network, through its geographical position and the access and insight it gives us to the High North, which is critical to our defence.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Building on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), I commend my hon. and gallant Friend on his statement and encourage him to do all he can to continue to raise awareness of the subversive actions of Russia, whether in the grey zone or through hybrid activities. Does he agree that the recent success of our armed forces in the north Atlantic rebuffs the Leader of the Opposition’s recent remarks—which she has still failed to apologise for—about our armed forces simply “hanging around”? What we have seen is that, whether at sea, in the air or on land, our armed forces work day in, day out to keep our homeland safe, and we should be proud of all they do.
Al Carns
We have seen billions of pounds-worth of cyber-attacks in the UK and a 30% increase in Russian surface and subsurface capability in the High North. We have seen tactics and training cross-pollinated between Russia and Ukraine, and now Iran, across 10 different countries, with low and slow-flying drones and high-end ballistic missiles mixed into a very effective strike programme. On the other side, we have also seen the capabilities from Ukraine deploying into the middle east to defend against those very same tactics. It is clear for everyone to see that there are countries working together to undermine the west, not just in the physical domain, but in the cyber and influence domains. The quicker we push back against that, the better.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is clear that under the current leadership, the US is no longer a reliable ally, threatening European colleagues and Commonwealth nations and undermining the very purpose of NATO. As we face increasing threats from Russia, we are reliant on the US for our nuclear deterrent, for our kit and for technology. Will the Minister share his plans to increase the prioritisation of British and European partners’ equipment, so that we can have some independence from the US and also boost our domestic market?
Al Carns
We have a multitude of allies and partners. The US has been a partner for the last 20 years and will continue to be so for some time to come. We share a plethora of different capabilities and have done so for the last 20 years. We also do the same with our European allies. As the hon. Member will know, the Lunna House agreement with Norway has resulted in a frigate deal. Our Trinity House deal with the Germans and, of course, our capability and co-operation with Poland have resulted in millions of pounds of investment, but also thousands of skilled jobs, from Scotland and Cornwall to Ireland and Wales.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his statement. I pay tribute to our incredibly brave naval personnel for the important work they do, often in difficult weather conditions, to keep us all safe. It strikes me that Harlow is quite a way from the Arctic circle and that the Arctic circle is considerably colder than Harlow, particularly at this time of year. Would he touch on the unique challenges that our naval fleet face in those conditions? Although it is hugely important that we support NATO with its Arctic Sentry mission, would he reflect on the challenges and reassure me and my constituents that our naval fleet are prepared for those challenges?
Al Carns
I am in no doubt, and am absolutely clear, that we have one of the best navies in the world. I have served in the Royal Navy for 24 years as a member of His Majesty’s Royal Marines. Operating in the High North is exceptionally difficult. I have only done a little bit of it in my time on the carrier strike group as the chief of staff, but when you are in Sea State 9 on a pointy frigate, yes, you need to have some mettle to continue doing your job, when it is day in, day out for weeks on end. What I can say is that the Royal Navy perseveres; it does a fantastic job. When that is combined with our P-8s in the sky and, of course, the silent service underneath the waves, I have no doubt that our nation is very well protected.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister may recall that back in November when we discussed the Yantar, I asked him about the circumstances under which the fleet contingency group would be given the green light to conduct a maritime interdiction operation. He responded that it would need to meet international law. I was pleased on 25 March when the Prime Minister put out a statement saying that the Royal Marines special forces would be given the opportunity to interdict Russian shadow fleet vessels, but subsequently, we have not seen any of that take place. The Minister mentioned that criteria would need to be met. There are 544 sanctioned Russian shadow fleet vessels. Can he confirm whether all of them—by virtue of being sanctioned—meet the criteria for being interdicted, or are there vessels in that list of 544 that are in scope, but have not yet transited through our waters?
Al Carns
As is absolutely clear, the maritime interdiction of a Russian-flagged vessel such as the Yantar is very different from one where the vessel either does not have a flag or changes its flag regularly. The criteria must be met to enable those boardings. The MOD is absolutely ready to go, but unfortunately I will not go through the detail here, because it may allow some of those vessels to put in place the mitigations that would reduce our ability to board them.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
With the Russian navy now escorting shadow fleet vessels down through the English channel, could a mitigation or a blocker for interdicting one of those vessels be a naval vessel with them? Was it an error of judgment by the Government to put them on notice that we were about to start those interdictions?
Al Carns
We had already supported a US boarding of a sanctioned vessel and, of course, multiple other allies as well. Russian naval escorts do escort some of these vessels. When they do, that is also putting a considerable strain on the Russian fleet, which is relatively limited when combined with its subsurface capability, and this is having an effect. What I can say is that the MOD is absolutely ready to board any ship that meets the parameters, and will do so if that happens.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and echo the point made by the Minister in respect of our brave personnel. I agree with him that we have the best Navy in the world—I just wish it were larger. I am unclear from what the Minister has said about whether we have had more than a narrative of what has happened over the last month and of our capabilities in respect of these events. What has actually changed in the Government’s planning with respect to defending our undersea infrastructure from Russia, in terms of either the disposition of our forces or procurement, perhaps? Also, he mentions the resilience of our undersea infrastructure. Can he tell the House a little about what plans we have to cope with an attack on undersea cables and how quickly we could recover from one?
Al Carns
It is a delight to see a Member from the hon. Member’s party sat in the Chamber during a statement on a defence subject—it is a first. I remind him of the capability that we have seen as this Russian operation takes place. The UK has deployed assets to map and track it, and then expose it. That, in fact, is one of the best deterrents, because no longer can Russia or indeed Putin claim that an operation or sabotage that took place was not them. That was the whole purpose of that operation, which has been fantastically conducted by the best Royal Navy in the world. Remember, it is not just the ship or the aircraft; a whole plethora of individuals—in fact, 500 people—sat behind this operation, conducting it, and it was successfully prosecuted.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I would like to return to the issue of UK maritime services facilitating the export of Russian energy, which I raised in this Chamber three months ago. Does the Minister not see the irony that, at a time when we are all grappling with how we fund our own defence, the Government are still letting UK plc bankroll Putin’s war machine—a war machine that is mapping our infrastructure? What action do the Government plan to take to stop it?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
A recent Policy Exchange document entitled, “Closing the Back Door” highlighted that, as a result of the Irish Government freeloading on the UK and NATO, they were increasingly reliant on the UK for security, particularly regarding air defence and maritime security, resulting in an inability to protect their own airspace and territorial waters, including crucial transatlantic cables. That has created a back-door vulnerability for the UK and NATO. What discussions has the Minister had with the Irish Government to up their game and provide for some security measures? Does he have any concerns that a future Irish Government that included Sinn Féin could lead to any co-operation breaking down?
Al Carns
We need to accept that Ireland in itself is exceptionally close to the mainland and we therefore have shared security interests. The Prime Minister has had constructive conversations with his Irish counterparts to ensure that, where applicable, we share those resources and protect both Ireland and, of course, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister talked about Government investment to deter adversaries in the north Atlantic, the Atlantic Bastion programme, extra money for P-8 aircraft and the additional service vessels on order, but unless I missed it, he did not say anything about plans for the AUKUS submarines that are in development with the United States. Will he comment on the future of the AUKUS programme?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Given Northern Ireland’s geographical position, it occupies a geo-security location of increasing significance, particularly with regard to transatlantic undersea cables. I am disappointed, then, that there are still only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland. Last month, there was a memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on providing sea and naval cover for the entire British Isles. That is particularly important to the Republic, given that its cyber-economy relies on those cables. It has been reported in the press that that cover is being provided free of charge to the Republic of Ireland. Is that correct? Surely not.
Al Carns
Northern Ireland’s essential role in our transatlantic relationship, and in the security of our great isle, is not lost on me—nor indeed is the essential role that Northern Ireland played in world war two. If I can—if it is within the operational parameter—I will write back to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the details on the numbers in Northern Ireland. Any discussions taking place with another country, in the diplomatic space, usually involve bilateral benefits.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his statement—no one inside or outside this House doubts his commitment. The Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy made a statement to the House about six weeks ago. I asked him then about the very issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just mentioned. As the Minister is aware, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force protect not only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Republic of Ireland. Pipelines and undersea cables go from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland and then into the Atlantic ocean. Can the Minister confirm that Russian submarines have not been active in the soft underbelly of the Republic of Ireland, which is a back door to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Al Carns
I will not go into specific detail on the geographical movement of submarines, but I can say that there are interdependencies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ireland and a multitude of other European nations in relation to undersea cables. We are working with our allies and partners, and will continue to do so, to ensure that those cables are absolutely protected and that, if any threat appears, it is mapped, tracked and deterred.
Point of Order
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about some missing written parliamentary answers that I am trying to track down. The Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), is here, so she might be able to help. I have been waiting over four months for a reply to written parliamentary questions 96357, 96475 and 96477 on special educational needs and disabilities reform, as well as to a freedom of education request, which is now several weeks overdue. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, encourage the Department for Education to reply to its correspondence in a timely fashion?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. Freedom of information requests are not a matter for the Chair, but it is important that Members receive timely answers to their parliamentary questions. His point will no doubt be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House, who will be able to pursue the matter.
Backbench Business
SEND Provision and Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Every debate on special educational needs and disabilities is dominated by statistics: funding, school places and workforce numbers. Those are important, but at the heart of this issue are children, families and carers who rely on the system. I thank the hundreds of families, from my constituency and across the country, who have contacted me since the debate was scheduled. I applied for the debate before the White Paper came out, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I focus pretty much all my comments on the White Paper. I am sure that other Members will speak about the issue more widely.
In my opinion, any credible reform of SEND, including the Government’s White Paper, must meet three tests. It must strengthen legal protections, improve delivery on the ground and address the underlying pressures in the system. If it does all three, it can and will save money in the long run, but I am afraid that the Government’s proposals fall short on all three. Before turning to the substance of the proposals, I will address the process by which they have been brought forward.
The consultation itself has raised serious concerns. Parents and representative organisations have expressed overwhelming opposition to key elements of the reforms, particularly the potential weakening of legal protections. National charities have warned that the proposals risk eroding rights, while others have asked whether the most consequential changes have been fully and transparently put to consultation at all. At the same time, many parents and forums report feeling that engagement has been superficial—that workshops and consultation exercises have not meaningfully reflected their views. That matters because reform of this scale depends on trust.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to underline these issues—that is why the Chamber is quite full. I am 71 years old. I remember that, when I was a child, there were not many children with autism or learning difficulties, but today the numbers are exceptional. Does he agree that it is time to find out why so many more children have special needs requirements now than when I was a boy in the ’60s and ’70s?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we are to solve—if that is the right word—the issue of special educational needs, and, more importantly, put in place the systems to support children with such needs, we need to understand the reasons for those needs.
Instead, there is a feeling that families who are already exhausted by the system are becoming disengaged from the very process that the Government’s proposals are supposed to improve. Across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, SEND is the most prominent issue in my casework. Parents, schools and carers feel consistently let down by a system that is too slow, too complex and too often unresponsive. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I see those challenges not just locally but reflected across the country.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making persuasive arguments. As in many constituencies, support for SEND is an ever increasing problem in my own. This is about not just support but the quality of support. Parents have to lose their jobs because the transport to take SEND children to and from school is being cut. Does he agree that the consultation should focus on need rather than on the financial aspect?
Gregory Stafford
I do not attribute any unfair or untoward motive to the Government; I think they are trying to improve the system. However, as I said in my opening remarks, my view is that if we improve it properly and get it right, that will save money. The danger with the way the Government have approached this is that they are looking to save money and then thinking about how they can solve the system. That is the danger.
Let me move on to the three tests that I mentioned at the start. The first test is whether the Government’s proposals strengthen legal protections. I accept that education, health and care plans, introduced in 2014, are not perfect, but they provide something essential: clarity, structure and, crucially, legal enforceability. The central question is whether individual support plans will carry those same enforceable rights. At present, the Government have not provided that assurance, and I look to the Minister to do so. In fact, external assessments suggest that these changes will significantly weaken legal protections. That creates a clear risk: replacing a system that is legally enforceable, albeit slow, with one that may be simpler in theory but weaker in law. And we know that enforceability matters.
Gregory Stafford
In a minute.
Across the country, over nine in 10 tribunal appeals are upheld against the local authority. And while, to be frank, that covers no local authority in any glory, it is evidence that the legal framework works when families are able to challenge decisions. If we remove that safeguard, families will lose their ultimate protection.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this really important debate to the Chamber. I recognise his passion for supporting young people with SEND, but I disagree with his views on the Government’s White Paper. I say that not because I am sitting on this side of the Chamber, but as a former teacher who worked with a system that did work and that was very similar to the system that is being put forward. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s point about legal enforcement and EHCPs, because even when children did get EHCPs, the schools just were not able to provide what the EHCP demanded. Whether it was a legal requirement or not, those schools were just not able to provide it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that.
Gregory Stafford
Given the time available, I will probably not take too many more interventions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is a strange argument that, because a child has been legally given an EHCP that requires a certain level of support but, for whatever reason—whether through the school, perhaps, or the local authority—that cannot be provided, we should therefore water down their legal rights.
When the current system works—and it does work in places—it is transformational. One parent in my constituency wrote:
“We are incredibly relieved. I have received the final copy of the EHCP, and the school is now implementing it. It has been a long road.”
Gregory Stafford
No, I will not.
That parent’s relief exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty with ambiguity is not reform; it is regression.
The second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—waiting times stand at about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment, far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks. Without clinical capacity, the central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended.
Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across my constituency, including at South Farnham school, Highfield South Farnham, St Polycarp’s, St Mary’s, and Badshot Lea infants, a consistent picture emerges: rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly:
“CAMHS sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity.”
That is not joined-up delivery; it is displacement of responsibility.
The consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12-year-old whose needs were identified in year 2 is still awaiting an assessment. Without diagnosis, her school has been unable to put the right support in place. Her mother wrote:
“We are at our wits’ end. The delays are not just administrative—they are shaping the course of our daughter’s life.”
That is not an isolated example. I have also worked with a family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refusing an EHCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process, only for the decision to be overturned.
There are further consequences of these proposals that need to be addressed. By moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable EHCP framework towards individual support plans, much of the responsibility for decision making—and, inevitably, dispute resolution—risks being pushed on to schools. That would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position: they would be expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs. At a time when schools are under significant pressure, this risks shifting both the legal and emotional burden on to institutions that are simply not equipped to carry it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for giving way. Is he not making two contradictory points, however? He says on the one hand that it should be legally enforceable—a point with which I entirely agree, particularly as nearly 99% of tribunal appeals are partially or wholly upheld. But he also recognises that EHCPs are not coming through at the level they should within the 20 weeks—certainly, it is about the 10% level—so having the legal backing and framework is not delivering the outcome.
Gregory Stafford
I do not think those two points are contradictory. One is an issue of the legislation, which is what I am talking about and what the Government are potentially looking to change, and another is how the system itself is being implemented by local authorities and others. I have been very clear in my speech that although I absolutely believe—as I think the hon. Gentleman does—that the legal requirements should remain, I am in no way sugar-coating the difficulties that local authorities are having in meeting those legal requirements.
The third test is whether the reforms address the underlying pressures in the system. Demand is rising rapidly: over 1.7 million children in England are now identified as having special educational needs, with numbers increasing year on year. Yet the Government’s proposals place additional expectations on schools and local authorities without resolving the fundamental constraints: namely, workforce funding, certainty and system capacity.
The White Paper promises more educational psychologists, therapists and specialists, but training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years. So the question is simple: how are those gaps going to be filled in the meantime? At the same time, the Department’s own figures show that there are now 400 fewer teachers than when we left office. So schools are being asked to do more with less.
Local authorities are at the sharp end of the system and are being placed in an increasingly impossible position. Colleagues will know that in Surrey around £100 million has been invested locally to expand SEND provision alongside further investment in staffing, yet demand continues to outstrip capacity. In Hampshire, SEND overspend now stands at around £140 million, placing extraordinary pressure on finances. This is not unique to my areas in Surrey or Hampshire; across the country, councils are being asked to meet rising demand, fulfil statutory obligations and absorb increasing costs without that long-term funding certainty. The result is a system where families face delays, councils face financial instability and schools face mounting pressure.
Taken together, this is not simply a failure of local authorities; it is a failure of the system to meet demand. And into that system the Government propose a decade-long transition. Councils are already preparing for a surge in EHCP applications as families seek to secure existing protections before reforms take effect, and that is certainly not going to ease pressure—it is, in fact, going to intensify it.
Through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I consistently see that SEND cannot be addressed in isolation. The number of children with SEND is rising by about 5% each year, and meeting that need requires genuine co-ordination between education and health. Yet SEND was almost entirely absent from the NHS 10-year plan, and when I submitted written questions on conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, the responses revealed that data is not collected individually but is grouped into very broad categories, which is not joined-up government but fragmentation. That needs to change.
I want to touch briefly on the independent sector capacity, because independent schools also play an important role in relieving pressure on the system, particularly for children with complex needs. They act as a pressure valve. I am aware that some characterise all independent provision as little more than private equity extracting profit, but the independent sector in my constituency provides excellent and comprehensive coverage and capacity. I am fortunate to have excellent specialist provision in my constituency, including at schools such as Hollywater, Undershaw, More House, Pathways, the Abbey school and the Ridgeway school, which support children with complex needs every day and should be supported.
In conclusion, families do not need another wholesale structural overhaul or a decade of transition. Instead, they need a system that delivers on time, with clarity and with enforceable rights. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she set out the full cost of replacing EHCPs with individual support plans, including the transition and implementation? Secondly, will she guarantee that ISPs will carry the same legally enforceable rights, including access to a tribunal? Thirdly, when will additional SEND staff be trained and in post? Fourthly, what action will be taken against local authorities that consistently fail to meet statutory timelines? Finally, will the Government publish detailed data on specific conditions and system performance so that outcomes can be properly measured?
I say to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that this is not about defending a White Paper; it is about defending the families we represent. Families are not asking for perfection; they are simply asking for a system that works. The question for the Government is simple: will they strengthen what exists or will they replace it with something weaker, slower and less certain? On the current trajectory, that is the risk, and it is one that I believe this House should not accept.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for it.
The support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is an area in which my Committee has taken an intense interest. It is the single biggest challenge in our education system, with far-reaching consequences. The current system is failing children, families and the professionals who work with them, right across our country. It is causing deep distress, sometimes even trauma, for children and their families. The implications of the failing system for local authority finances are profound, and many professionals are put in the invidious position of being unable to deliver the education and support that children and young people require because of impossible constraints on resources and ever-increasing need.
The outcomes for children with SEND are unacceptably poor. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the description given by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that this is a system that is broadly working. A system that relies on parents having to battle every step of the way and having to go to tribunals to seek redress is an exclusionary and inequitable system. We need to be absolutely clear that it is failing and that the reform that is necessary to get it to work is comprehensive and far-reaching.
It is vital that the failures in the current system are addressed. It is vital on its own terms, because no child should feel that there is no place for them in our education system, that their needs are not understood or, even worse, as we have heard from some of our witnesses, that they are the problem. No parent should have to battle at every single stage of their child’s education to get the support they need. It is also vital if we want to improve outcomes in our education system, and if we want to unleash the talent and creativity of every single young person, for the benefit of our society and our economy.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear from parents who have real concerns about exclusions, which have been mentioned already. Parents want to understand how accountability will work in a future system, particularly in relation to concerns that their children might experience trauma as a result of exclusion. I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s thoughts on that?
Helen Hayes
Accountability is one of the areas that our Committee highlighted in our report last year, which I will speak about in a moment.
Last year we published our inquiry report “Solving the SEND crisis”. The report was based on 900 pieces of written evidence, seven oral evidence sessions, and visits to Ontario in Canada and to schools and colleges implementing innovative good practice in England. In 95 detailed recommendations, our report called for comprehensive change to the SEND system, with a focus on early identification of need, making mainstream schools inclusive for the children with SEND who are already in them, increasing the accountability of the SEND system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) rightly suggests, for schools, local authorities and, importantly, for the NHS, and involving parents and carers in every decision about the support that their children receive.
To date, we have received from the Government only an interim response to our recommendations, so we look forward to receiving their full response in due course. However, we are encouraged that the Government’s SEND reform proposals reflect several of my Committee’s recommendations. It is very welcome that the Government have committed additional resources to SEND support and will effectively be running two parallel systems for a number of years to avoid sharp cliff edges between the old system and the new one. That is the right way to deliver significant reform. I know that the decision to write off 90% of local authority SEND debts also comes as a huge relief.
It is the right approach to prioritise early identification of need, to be seeking to make mainstream schools fully inclusive for the children who are already in them, and to be expanding the availability of provision in the state sector for children who need a place at a specialist school.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
One of my constituents, Olivia, is battling for her son to stay in mainstream education, alongside her son’s twin, who is an anchor for him. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we must ensure that ISPs are there quickly to avoid some of the distress of the process as parents battle to keep their children in mainstream settings?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend speaks very well on behalf of his constituent, whose situation is replicated across the country, which gives urgency to the need to reform our SEND system.
It is the right approach to be increasing the expertise of teaching staff and to be making specialist expertise available to schools whenever they need it. The long waiting times for diagnosis and specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, are one of the most appalling aspects of the current system. Childhood is so short and children should not be seeing years of their education pass them by without the support they need to get the most out of it.
My Committee is undertaking our own scrutiny of the Government’s proposals tomorrow, when we will hear directly in an oral evidence session from witnesses with a wide range of perspectives and expertise. We will write formally to the Government in due course with our reflections following the evidence session.
As I have spoken with parents and the organisations that represent them, I have heard about anxieties with some of the Government’s proposals that I hope the Minister will address today. The proposals involve, over time, a scaling back of EHC assessments and EHCPs, replacing some EHCPs with individual support plans. Parents and carers who I have spoken to are understandably concerned about replacing a statutory plan with an ISP that will not be on a statutory footing. The concern is about how accountability will be guaranteed if there are problems with the ISP, if their child’s needs are not correctly identified, if the ISP that is drafted is not fit for purpose or if it is not being implemented properly.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Helen Hayes
I am afraid I will not because of the lack of time.
Parents and carers of children with SEND have often been let down so much and by so many different parts of the system that they simply do not trust that anything will work as it should. Their children have rights on paper that are often not upheld in practice. In such a context, accountability matters.
Rebuilding the broken trust and confidence of parents and carers in the SEND system will be critical to the success of the Government’s reforms. It is why my Committee recommended no changes to current rights and entitlements, so that a new system can be built while parents still have the same access to redress to fall back on. I hope that the Minister will speak to the ways in which her reforms are designed to ensure that trust and confidence are rebuilt, and especially that parents and carers know exactly what will happen if things go wrong.
There are also concerns about the proposed reassessment of EHCPs in year 6. The transition from primary to secondary is one of the most high-risk times in a child’s education. We hear time and again from parents who say that starting at secondary school was when their child’s education started to unravel, or that if only they had been able to transport what they had in primary school into secondary school, things might have gone better.
I am grateful to the Minister for the considered and thoughtful approach that she has taken to SEND reform, and for the extensive listening she has undertaken with parents, carers and professionals. The current consultation on draft proposals is an important part of the process and I hope that if it is necessary to make adjustments to the proposals in the light of feedback from the consultation, the Government will be willing to do so. It is so important that these reforms are absolutely right.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents raising concerns about delays to EHCPs, a lack of specialist placements and the struggle to secure the support that their children need. Like so many other Members of the House, SEND issues dominate my surgeries and casework, and it is heartbreaking to see the delays and the pain and anguish brought to those children and families as they wait for what they deserve: an education that works for them and their specific needs. What troubles me even more is not those cases that have been brought to me, but how many more there must be who have not come forward.
One of the most troubling aspects of this SEND crisis is that too many children simply do not have a suitable place at all. Children are left in settings that cannot meet their needs or, in some cases, are left out of education altogether. But this issue does not begin with placements; it begins much earlier in the system. Buckinghamshire council has advised that there is a shortage of occupational therapists to carry out assessments and there are delays of up to 56 weeks just to issue an EHCP. That is over a year in which a child may be stuck in the wrong setting, a year of lost progress and a year of growing pressure on families.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as the harm caused to the children who do not receive timely support for their special needs, if children are in the wrong setting, harm is caused to the teachers, who are not qualified to support those children in their normal, mainstream setting? If we can do the assessments and get the right support quicker, it will help not only the children, but the educationalists providing their education.
Greg Smith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the whole system that suffers in the circumstance that he describes, such as the teaching staff who do their absolute best and every other child in those classes. He makes a very fair point. Before we even get to the question of school places, the system is already falling behind.
In Buckinghamshire, nearby SEND schools are already oversubscribed, and despite the best efforts of heroic teaching staff, mainstream schools cannot always meet complex needs. This is where we in Buckinghamshire have been most let down by this Government. Back in May 2024, the Department for Education wrote to Buckinghamshire council and committed to a brand-new, 152-place SEND school for Buckinghamshire. That was not a political pledge or a general election campaign promise; it was officially announced by the Department for Education. This Labour Government have formally scrapped it.
What was a £20 million spend has been downgraded to £8 million over three years for Buckinghamshire. That is not good enough. That school would not have solved all our problems, but it would have gone a very long way. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again and deliver this school for my constituents. Children and families in Buckinghamshire would benefit so much from it.
Let me turn to the Government’s proposed SEND reforms. Many parents have contacted me on this issue, and I am concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has outlined, that the Government are not even close to getting this right. One constituent wrote to me:
“I am concerned that the direction of SEND reform risks children and young people having to fit into whatever provision is available, or else missing out on education entirely. I’m really worried that these new proposals will leave parents having to battle directly with schools to get help for their child.”
That is an important point. We need a system that works for the needs of each and every child, not a system that works for a faceless bureaucracy.
My constituent continued:
“My two children both have an autism diagnosis, but are significantly different in their support needs. A one-size fits all type provision will not be suitable for even these two siblings. I would love them to be able to manage at a mainstream school, but the solution is not for schools to become more SEN friendly, the solution is a complete overhaul and reform of the schooling system. It is antiquated and not fit for purpose.”
I was lucky enough to go to an event in Portcullis House with parents and teachers of SEND families this afternoon, chaired by Rory Bremner. The evidence given by those parents and teachers was quite frightening; many fear that under this White Paper, if it is brought in, their children will be excluded altogether. I urge the Minister to get a read-out from that meeting.
That leads on to wider concerns about the loss of individualised and legally enforceable support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon put it in his own excellent speech. That is about not just the risk of children being forced into inappropriate provision, but the potential loss of legal protections and tribunal rights and the potential loss of “education other than at school” packages for children who cannot attend any school setting. That cannot be right.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
When I spoke in the Select Committee debate on this matter in the Chamber, I highlighted that too many parents feel that the system is done to them, rather than working with them. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and the concern of parents in my constituency that in order for trust to be rebuilt, there has to be some sort of individually, legally enforceable backstop for those families?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. It is the interests of those families that motivated me to speak in this debate, and I entirely endorse the point that he makes.
In the last few moments that I have, I will briefly raise another specific case that I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s reflections on in her summing-up speech. The case was brought to me by a constituent who adopted two children in 2020. Both children experienced significant early trauma and later received diagnoses indicating multiple and complex needs, not least foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can involve more than 400 co-occurring difficulties affecting physical health, cognition, executive functioning and behaviour. Delays in intervention have had real and significant consequences.
As adoptive parents, my constituents are aware of research estimating that adoption generates significant long-term social and economic value—I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. Yet, paradoxically, by adopting their children, they appear to have lost priority access to some state-funded support that would have been available had those children remained in foster care. That unintended consequence is deeply concerning. More broadly, adopted children with SEND often fall between services. Responsibility is frequently passed from one agency to another without the care and attention that the children need, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
Too many families are being let down. “One size fits all” does not work and never will. Let us focus on the child and the needs of each child, and build a system that genuinely works.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this really important debate.
Children in West Lancashire have previously felt let down by the SEND system. People lost faith in the very system that is meant to support the children in our communities who need it the most. That is the inheritance that this Government took from the last Government. I know how important getting this right is to the Secretary of State, and the work that this Government have done in the past few years has not gone unnoticed by my constituents, but it is so important that we get these changes right. The people who write to my inbox or visit my surgeries are simply desperate for a system that treats SEND pupils with dignity and truly recognises them as individuals filled with all sorts of potential.
There is much good in the Government’s plans. The vast increase in specialist places and the training and upskilling that will give our teachers more tools to help SEND students will make a real difference to the lives of children and their families.
SEND parents are no different from any other parents. Every day, they fight to give their children the best possible start in life, and it is so important that this Government support them to do so, without them having to fight endless layers of bureaucracy and constantly push back against a “computer says no” culture that requires individuals to fit cookie-cutter templates to get bespoke assistance. We must ensure that, through these changes, we are giving parents respite, not just inadvertently moving the fight from one place to another.
Andrew George
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and congratulate her on having been a great Health Minister—I was sorry that she stood aside. She will be aware that there is a party whose Members are not present this evening. A lot of people in the media are suggesting that they will form the next Government, but their policy in this area is that this is a crisis of overdiagnosis. Does she share my concern that this debate is not being properly engaged in by the people who want to damage the system most?
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words, and I agree that we cannot simply say that there is overdiagnosis. It has been said previously that there were not as many people with SEND before; the reality is that we do not know that, because for many years, SEND simply went unnoticed. People were not diagnosed, and were simply written off as naughty or backward. We must recognise how important these children are and how much support they need.
Dozens of parents in West Lancashire have contacted me to request that I come to the Chamber today to protect the rights they have under current legislation to enforceable provision based on a child’s particular needs. We all know the deficiencies that exist in the current EHCP system, but we must make sure that we listen to SEND parents. I know that this Government are committed to ensuring that these changes make life easier for SEND children and their families, not harder.
Twice, I have met a constituent who has a son with severe and complex special needs—he is nonverbal and has sensory challenges. Even when her son was offered a place at a special school, the local authority did not accept that place, despite it being cheaper than the local authority provision. It ignored recommendations and assessments, and my constituent’s son was out of education for seven months. My constituent had to use the rights that exist in current legislation to fight for the most basic right—for her son to have an education—and the issue was only resolved because of his legal right to legal enforceability and the tribunal power to name a school. Had that not been the case, her son might still not be in education. My constituent agrees with the Government that the system we inherited is not working, and she is not asking us to scrap these reforms, but we must ensure that the changes we are making to an unfair system support SEND children and their families as much as we possibly can.
Last year, Reform took control of Lancashire county council, the authority that makes decisions about SEND provision for my constituency. It is obvious that, despite claiming that it would tackle the issue, Reform has demonstrated no interest in it. Its national party does not care—as has already been pointed out, not a single one of its Members is present for this evening’s debate. Reform-led Lancashire county council has failed to provide tailored support for children in my constituency, and has failed to support families in my constituency who are fighting tooth and nail for their children to have the same opportunities that the rest of us rightly expect as standard. It would be an abdication of my duty to represent my constituents if I did not seek to give parents every tool in the box to defend the right of their children to a decent education, in the face of a local authority whose leadership turns its gaze away and plugs its ears.
I am proud that this Government are tackling this issue in a constructive way—parents have waited for these changes for far too long. As part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to give every child the best possible start in life, I would be grateful if the Minister gave a clear reassurance today that the legal right to an EHCP or similar for those who need it will remain, and that the ability of families to enforce provision will not be weakened by reforms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now three minutes, and it is highly unlikely that most people will get in. I call Andrew George.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—in fact, I made a number of interventions in place of my speech. I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), because she was making a very strong case about the need to ensure that these reforms are forced through. The three tests that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) introduced to this debate set the template, on which I hope the Minister will respond in due course.
In my constituency and across Cornwall—it is good to see Members from Cornwall in the Chamber this evening—the issues that are causing the greatest concern relate to the large number of tribunals that take place in order for parents to ensure that their children get the decent education they desperately deserve.
Ms Creasy
Let me tell the hon. Member that in London people have the same concern that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) set out. We have to change the system, but too often, parents have had to go to tribunal to be heard. Any reform must support parents to continue to be heard as part of the educational system supporting these children. Does the hon. Member agree?
Andrew George
I absolutely agree. What worries us most is the fact that parents have to be sharp-elbowed enough to take on the tribunal system, which is no mean feat. What worries me is how many other parents do not have the confidence to challenge decisions, to use the tribunal system, to make a complaint to the ombudsman or to use local authority facilities to pursue those issues. There are major issues that need to be reflected upon. It certainly should not just be those parents with the self-confidence to navigate their way through the system whose children benefit, while so many others fall by the wayside. That causes me a great deal of concern.
Another issue that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon identified in his opening remarks is the very low number of authorities meeting the 20-week EHCP target. That results in many pupils simply not getting on and getting the services in the education system that they desperately need.
Given that I have already made a couple of interventions, I will conclude my remarks and let others come in.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on bringing forward this debate. This Government have set forward an ambitious plan to reform the SEND system in the SEND White Paper. I am proud of the commitment that the Government have made to ensuring that children with SEND are supported to thrive and achieve by bringing about the changes that parents and educators deserve and need.
Ask any parent about their experience of navigating the current SEND system and they will tell stories of being pushed from pillar to post and not being listened to. The trust and confidence of parents and carers in the SEND system that we inherited from the previous Government has been completely undermined. Last Friday, in my constituency of Broxtowe, I met parents and educators who spoke of their own heartbreaking experiences. They told me of their families being traumatised and their children often being excluded from education altogether. They welcome the White Paper and express their support for all that it seeks to do, but they have concerns about accountability and the legal status of parents who seek to get support for their families. They support the Government in wanting early interventions and support provided closer to home. They are particularly happy that there will be additional occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, and upskilling for staff in every school.
Parents and educators seek further detail about how we can reform the current teacher training curriculum so that newly qualified teachers and educators are trained with the skills and expertise they need in every classroom, including for dyslexic pupils and the neurodiverse. As we know, dyslexia is one of the most common forms of learning difficulty and learning difference, yet under the current system, support is inconsistent or non-existent, or simply depends on an overstretched classroom teacher who may not have received specialist training. It is my hope that the White Paper will be a vehicle for developing a national dyslexia strategy, and I am confident that the Government will take that into consideration alongside all their other excellent work to improve the education outcomes and life chances of those with SEND.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister is probably sick of hearing me bang on about the local picture up in the East Riding of Yorkshire and the fact that ours is the lowest-funded local authority for SEND. We have roughly £1,000 per pupil per year, while Camden is at the other end of the league table: the funding in the Prime Minister’s constituency amounts to £3,800 per pupil. That discrepancy, that inequality, is simply insane. It is an historic problem caused by a funding formula that does not work for larger rural authorities, and it is an issue on which Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for many years.
This is one of those “almost too difficult to do” problems that Ministers, both on our side and on the Labour side, have perhaps shied away from. I ask the Minister tonight to grasp this unique opportunity, given that the Government are now consulting. I am pleased that I shall be meeting her next week, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and I hope that we can find a way forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for giving us a chance to debate these issues again today. In the limited time available to me, I will draw attention to a few of the specific problems that the system is throwing up. One problem involves EHCP drafting—if, of course, it is possible to obtain an EHCP in a timely manner in the first place. We often see only a vague recognition of need, which means that delivery on that need and the action plan is unenforceable from a legal perspective. The routine breaches of timelines are outrageous: people are waiting four years for an autism diagnosis. As a parent of a child with SEND, I was extremely lucky, in that my son’s nursery recognised his developmental issues when he was two and was very supportive during the process on which we then embarked, but I then became aware of how adversarial that process can become when one begins to engage in the issue of local authority provision.
I found out at 3.30 pm on a Friday, via an email, that my son would not be able to take up the school placement that was, perhaps, most suitable for him at that point. The email did say that I could appeal against the decision, but it gave no reasons for why it had been made, and of course at 3.30 pm on a Friday everyone had finished work for the weekend, so replying was not an option. We can address, and should be addressing, such simple problems in the system to ensure that the journey for parents is easier and less challenging, because the more we can get the children into the right settings, the better it will be for them. Fewer will lose time in education and it will be possible to avoid the long-term problems that lead to further issues in adulthood, so that we do not find a child heading into a journey of never-ending care.
Gregory Stafford
I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying, and I think the idea that anyone on this side is wholly endorsing the current system is a false one. My fear, however—which I think my hon. Friend is expressing—is that, under the current proposals in the White Paper, if he unfortunately has to proceed through the tribunal system, the tribunal will be no longer be able to allocate a specific provision for parents and child, which essentially renders the whole thing null and void. Does he agree that we should be asking the Government not to rip up their proposals, but to listen to the concerns that parents are expressing about their changes and tweak them, so that they can be responsive to the problems that he is raising?
Charlie Dewhirst
One of the problems for the children involved is that their journey is uncertain, and the system becomes inflexible. The reviews are not carried out in a timely fashion, which means that a child gets stuck in a placement that may not be right, which exacerbates the problem for the future. We end up with much bigger, more costly issues—not just costly in terms of local authority or central Government spending, but costly for parents and children. As a parent, I think that one of the biggest challenges is not knowing where that journey is going to end—not knowing what my son’s outlook is likely to be in two years, five years or 10 years. If we felt confident that the system would be there to provide support and the necessary safeguard in respect of that schooling provision—perhaps provision into adulthood, if required—perhaps we could start to break down some of the barriers.
I appreciate that much of this comes with costs, and that local authorities need more provision in certain areas. I plead with the Government once again to ensure that the inequality in the funding gap is addressed, but I hope we now have an opportunity to find a better way forward for SEND provision.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I speak as one who, like many of my colleagues, has received many emails and other messages, and engaged in many conversations with parents of disabled children. I know that throughout the country parents are fighting battles to secure for their children the basic support that the law says they should already have. This is a profoundly damaged system that the Government are determined to change, and I welcome that hugely.
In my view, the schools White Paper represents the most important attempt to improve life for disabled children and young people, and for their families, since the introduction of EHCPs in 2014 and, before that, the last Labour Government’s Aiming High for Disabled Children programme in 2007. I should perhaps declare an interest here: I campaigned with Contact a Family, Mencap and the Council for Disabled Children to build the political case for disabled children in the mid-2000s that led to Aiming High and secured nearly a billion pounds in new funding, plus new rights for disabled children and young people, and for their families.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £4.8 million of extra investment that this Government have put in to support SEND adaptations in Bolton, but also acknowledge the recognition that came from parents at my SEND roundtable last week that this cannot just be about extra investment in the system? Reform is now long overdue.
Ben Coleman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am glad his local area has received that investment. Indeed, the two boroughs in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham will get a 10% increase in SEND funding for next year to support new, dedicated SEND spaces in every secondary school. That sort of thing is happening across the country, and it is absolutely right that it should.
These are real commitments, seriously made: nearly £4 billion for school improvements, new therapists and specialists, and better teacher training; the new individual support plans for every child with SEND; and the EHCP and tribunal rights being retained for those with the most complex needs. All are seriously made commitments, and I welcome them, but I have to say that questions none the less remain—some of them have been raised today. I have just three questions for the Minister, and the first relates to enforceability. If a school fails to deliver what is written in a child’s individual support plan, I do think parents need a clear legal route to resolution.
Peter Swallow
I recently hosted an open meeting with parents on these reforms. Although there was widespread welcoming of much of what is in the White Paper, they urged that real, sustained change should happen. One concern was about the enforceability and accountability for ISPs, what would happen if a school was not delivering what was needed to support a child, and where that accountability would fall.
Ben Coleman
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There has been talk about a beefed-up school complaints process. I do not think that will be sufficient, and I ask the Minister to consider extending the remit of the local government and social care ombudsman to provide a binding route—a statutory backstop—to resolution when schools and other settings fall short.
My second question is about health and social care co-ordination. This is where the White Paper is perhaps most silent, and where the current system is most visibly broken. As has been mentioned, the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, recently examined how the health aspects of EHCPs are being delivered, and the result was depressing. One of the biggest problems is that integrated care boards and local authorities simply do not jointly commission children’s therapy services. Back in 2014, a truly joined-up education, health and care plan was exactly the ambition that was being strived towards, but Health never fully showed up and the then Government allowed it to get away with that for years. We now have to tackle that, and witnesses to our Committee urged that the Government mandate local authorities to have representation on ICB decision-making boards. Is the Minister prepared to give that serious consideration?
Finally, children with SEND spend most of their lives outside the classroom, cared for by parents, who receive remarkably little support. Will the Minister commit to a clear, published expectation that health and social care will provide families with the information, guidance and practical support that they need?
The White Paper shows that the Government understand that the system is broken and are prepared to invest. Success is going to depend on many things, including whether Health finally shows up, whether ISPs are properly enforced and whether families get the support that they need. I have every confidence that this Government are going to carry on doing the right thing, and I look forward to improving the lives of disabled children and young people, and their families.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for calling this important debate. Like him, my inbox has overflowed since I was elected last year, with concerned parents writing to me about the state of special educational needs provision. They recognise that the system is broken, but also that the system that they experience in Surrey is perhaps more broken that almost anywhere else.
I will start with one bit of good news and an acknowledgment: I thank the Department for confirming funding for the new Frimley Oak academy, which will open in my constituency in the near future and will cater to 170 people. It represents an important step forward in addressing a vital local need for children with special educational needs.
The sad reality is that for too long, so many parents and children in my constituency have been failed, I am sorry to say, by Surrey county council. Surrey has had the highest recorded number of SEND tribunal appeals anywhere in the country for three consecutive years. That statistic is a symptom of systemic dysfunction and failure.
Behind every one of those appeals are human stories. A constituent of mine recently wrote to me. Her opening words were simply:
“Our life is crumbling right now.”
Others described their children being stripped of their childhood, families being physically and mentally broken, and their finances being pushed to the brink. At a constituency surgery that I held recently, a parent described the process of navigating the SEND system as being like walking the yellow brick road, with every trial and tribulation thrown in their way, and then finally getting to the emerald city that might represent something a little better, only to pull back the curtain and find that there is nothing there—an EHCP with the wrong name, describing the wrong child, offering an inappropriate package of support.
Sitting at the top of all this in Surrey are the senior leaders, who say that there is no problem with special educational needs in Surrey at all, just parents who are too articulate. They claim, outrageously, that there is not a problem; there are just parents who have too inflated an idea of their children’s wants. It is absolutely atrocious.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My hon. Friend and I, along with colleagues in Surrey, have campaigned hard to change Surrey county council’s appalling approach to children with special educational needs. Does he agree that local government reorganisation is a huge opportunity for us to change the culture? Will he urge the Minister to ensure that all newly established local authorities put children first?
Dr Pinkerton
I agree that with local government reorganisation there is an opportunity to get the processes right, but I recognise that there are enormous risks, particularly in Surrey, where the new unitary authority is likely to start its life with £4 billion of debt and an annual shortfall of £150 million in its operational budget. It could be a council in section 114 special economic measures from the moment of its creation. Given the level of need that I see described in my inbox, I am incredibly concerned that more parents and more generations of children will be let down. I think right hon. and hon. Members across Surrey will feel the same.
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their plans, which I think have the correct intention, but I am incredibly concerned that the necessary financial foundations may not be in place to ensure that children are looked after properly. Ultimately, this debate comes down to one simple question: will the Government’s proposed SEND reforms deliver meaningful change, or will they simply repackage a system that continues to fail families? Judging from the state of my inbox, we cannot allow any more families to be failed.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this debate. As the motion states, it is vital that Parliament keeps a spotlight on the SEND system as the Government work to bring about the necessary reforms. “Necessary” is the right word, because the system that this Labour Government inherited is not working for families, for children, for local authorities, for our health service or for our teaching professionals. The last Government left the system close to breaking point, and it is this Labour Government who are building a system that works.
In Lancashire, the Government have increased the high needs block allocation to £223 million in 2026-27, a 56% increase on the 2018-19 allocation. They also committed an extra £19 million towards capital investment last year, with £23 million coming in this year—an uplift of £4 million to support the capital costs. Like councils across the country, Lancashire is benefiting from 90% of its SEND deficit being written off. However, my constituents in Hyndburn still face a lengthy wait for an EHCP to be finalised. Lancashire county council has issued only 17.3% of its plans within the 20-week requirement, so I am interested in the Minister’s plans to improve the accountability of local authorities. I am losing count of the number of families that have been in tears in my surgeries due to the failures of our county council, currently led by Reform, in making sure that we meet the needs of our children when they need that support and in providing certainty for parents in getting the education those children all deserve.
Parents and carers are desperate for a system that works with them, not against them, as we have heard in a number of contributions this evening. How we do the reform is as important as the reform itself. That is why I called for the Government to ensure they put the voices and views of parents, carers and young people at the heart of their reforms. It is undoubtedly evident that they strengthened the plans and, through the time the Government took to try to get this right, helped to positively shape the Government’s approach. Many of my constituents found that engagement refreshing and helpful. I was also delighted to welcome the Schools Minister to Haslingden high school, where we had a great morning with young people and the headteacher.
I am delighted that the Government’s ambitious road map for change recognises that the reforms cannot be piecemeal. It addresses the system as a whole. I do not have time to outline the many facets and focuses outlined in the White Paper, but I believe it starts to provide a road map for how we can deliver the change for every child, wherever they live, in order to end the postcode lottery in which they currently exist. A more consistent, earlier, clearer and fairer system is within reach. We need to be ambitious for our children, delivering expert SEND provision in every mainstream school, where no child is left behind.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
When addressing this subject, I think of the 16 years of surgeries I have had where parents have come in to explain their profound dissatisfaction with the way in which the evaluation of their child’s needs has been conducted. One of the most powerful examples was a constituent who came to me and said that their son has complex SEND needs, including: autism; ADHD; sensory processing disorder; demand avoidance; social, emotional and mental health; and severe anxiety and school trauma. They went on to tell me that for the last eight years, there had been a series of failings in dealing with their situation—an inadequate and inaccurate EHCP, and school placements and support failures—and then went on to tell me the enormous impact on their family.
I honestly believe that everyone in this place wants to get the right improvements to this broken system.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Two of my constituents, Tom and Emily—they are brother and sister—got EHCPs after tribunal fairly early, because their parents were so robust. They then only got suitable schools after tribunal, against the will of the local authority, because their parents were so robust. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that any reforms to the process must be enforceable?
John Glen
I do, but I want to address the key point that I think we all have to acknowledge. Between 2014 and 2023, there was a 140% expansion in the number of EHCPs to well over half a million. In generating that volume of demand, Members in all parts of the House—no matter who is in government—have to be honest about whether, given the budgets we have, we can actually provide solutions that meet the needs of every individual child. We are all trying to make the case to achieve that, whether through EHCPs giving us the legal backstop, or moving to an individual support plan in a school-based solution.
I want us to recognise that, in defining needs so much more broadly, we have created such a demand and expectation of the state. We have to be real about what we can and cannot provide. This is very delicate territory, because we are always concerned that we will be accused of denying that the needs exist, but what concerns me is that we will set expectations that the school will set up an individual definition of provision and it will not be met in exactly the same way that we have seen with the challenges over the past decade. There is a central tension in the White Paper that, as we move from a rights-based system of statutory entitlements to a resource-led system, the situation will automatically improve.
It seems to me that the representatives of those with unmet SEND provision and the charities are concerned that having set expectations in our country that EHCPs are legally enforceable, there will be an enforceability gap. With the proposed ISPs, although parents might have the right to a plan, they will not have the legal right to the provision it contains. If we standardise things over individual needs and move to a situation where we have nationally determined fixed packages of support, we will risk getting into exactly the situation that we have reached in recent years.
Cameron Thomas
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. He is treading this compassionate tightrope very delicately. I have an organisation in my constituency called Children Lead The Way, which takes children who are struggling in the traditional setting outdoors, and some of those children are later able to go back into the school system. Rather than underdiagnosing, which, if we are not careful, might be the end result here, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that if we reconsider the settings, it is possible that children who are taken out of settings may later be reintroduced?
John Glen
Of course I do. This is where the problem is. If we move towards a standardised provision that is driven by central Government or a latest orthodoxy, we risk missing the flexibility that should and needs to exist on an individual basis.
There is a core point about which I am still uncomfortable. In a situation where, as in 2024-25, parents won 95% to 99% of tribunal cases, it appears that the system has defined needs that exist for which we cannot provide. We need to level with the country and with parents and say what we can provide and what we are actually unable to provide.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
John Glen
I will not have any more time, so I will not.
Let us not peddle a dishonesty by saying that we are going to deliver a perfect system. Frankly, we have got to the point where we need to look at the definitional parameters and get to a more honest conversation about how we are going to actually deal with this problem.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my normal interests: my wife is a special needs co-ordinator in our local authority, the London borough of Bexley, and one of our children is in receipt of an EHCP. I know this journey; like other Members in the Chamber, I know the battles of being a parent in that position. I am the parent of twins and, as I have said before, I have had to battle for every single aspect of one child’s education and for no aspects of my other child’s education.
We have heard lots of criticism of what might be coming, and lots of criticism of the current system. Let us be frank: the current system is totally and utterly broken. I support the proposals because there are issues that we can put right, such as with Experts at Hand. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) says about the health aspects—there are things we still need to get right there. Three years ago, my local authority ended up with an Ofsted judgment of systemic failings in our SEND system, and there was no way of holding our local NHS provision to account on those matters. We have to get that right. With Experts at Hand and that early intervention, there are things that we can do.
We have heard about the individual support plans. I have to ask why on earth we are making young people wait a year or two until their EHCP is updated, particularly for some young people whose plans do not have the complexity that my daughter’s has. We could get that early intervention much more quickly and provide that support at a much earlier stage.
We have heard about the issue of standardised provision. I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), whose daughter’s needs are very different from my daughter’s needs. Within that issue, we need to look at the fact that some people need to be in mainstream education and some people need to be in a special school. We wonder why one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and why we have had the debate over welfare, but we isolate so many young people and then question why they are not available and ready to work.
The Minister knows that there are three issues that I think we can get right but about which I still have concerns: transition, getting those health aspects right, and support for professionals in the sector.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Last week I held a roundtable on the White Paper with Dartford residents. Although they welcome the greater focus on schools providing quicker and more flexible support, they are nervous about the level of resourcing that will be available to schools. They are also worried about the accountability of schools to parents through the new complaints procedure and about the perceived loss of rights for families compared with the current system. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need reassurance from the Government on those issues?
Daniel Francis
I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour about those issues. We can get this right—I do genuinely believe that. I thank the Minister for the engagement she has had with the sector and Back Benchers like myself through this process so that we can get right both the consultation and legislative changes. We need to accept that we are dealing with a system that is totally broken. Like my hon. Friend, I held my own consultation. I will not go into detail on it, but I heard long and hard from those parents.
My borough has gone through many things—the Ofsted judgment, the safety valve, which was a ticking time bomb for so many of our families and their provision. I was a councillor for 20 years in the London borough of Bexley, and I saw the system change fundamentally. I was leader of the opposition on the council and my wife was actually employed by the authority as a special needs co-ordinator, and if a family like mine could not get through the system, how on earth can any parent expect to get through the system?
That is why I do support these changes. We need to get the early intervention right. We wonder why we have inherited the system we have today for children with disabilities and special educational needs, but we saw the loss of Sure Start, and many other changes happened in those long 14 years. I thank the Minister, and I will continue to challenge her, but I do support these changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions do not allow other colleagues to speak. I call Chris Coghlan.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I first want to address the comments from the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I have enormous respect for him, but his underlying argument is flawed, because there is the same number of SEND children now as there was in 2010 and in 1978. The question is why the number fell so much up to 2016 and then rose, and I would suggest that the answer probably has something to do with the scrapping of Sure Start by my party and his, but that is for another day.
One month ago a SEN dad messaged me on Facebook about his autistic son, who has been out of school for seven years, with his tribunal delayed three times. He said that his son will now be out of education and employment for the rest of his life. He said that his son had been “left to rot” by his local authority and the NHS. I wrote to him to say how sorry I was. I suggested how he could get help and put him in touch with his MP, but then two weeks ago he wrote to me again. He said:
“My son is very unwell, and I can no longer carry on. I am mentally and physically exhausted, and I am electing to end my life. I intend to find peace. I simply cannot continue, and I refuse to see my son deteriorate further. There will be no one to care for him, so now the NHS will have to care for my son.”
We called 999 immediately, and the emergency services sent an ambulance.
We have seen too many families like this. I presented to the Government and published in The Times evidence that hundreds of SEND children are avoidably killing themselves due to public authority negligence. ITV has published evidence of misconduct and law breaking on SEND by 117 local authorities. I believe that the Government are serious about SEND reform, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming to Dorking tomorrow to meet Surrey SEND families, but family after family has testified to me that the legal rights that the Government are seeking to reduce can be the difference between life and death.
When a council officer determines that a child does not need an EHCP when they know that that child does in fact need an EHCP, that is serious misconduct. We know that this is happening on a massive scale because families win the resulting tribunals 98% of the time. Councils are betting that they can save money because the families are too exhausted to take them to tribunal. Children are killing themselves as a result.
Under-resourcing is no excuse.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions under-resourcing. At West Sussex county council, the department just put an answerphone message on its system saying, “We are overwhelmed. We cannot take any calls today.” Does he agree that the parents who are navigating the system and often describe it as a “fight” do not have the opportunity just to put their answerphone on or not show up for their kids that day because they are overwhelmed, and that we need to do far more for them?
Chris Coghlan
I entirely agree. An under-resourced officer can still determine need, still issue an EHCP and still be transparent about what cannot yet be delivered. That, at least, is honest.
I know that many council officers do the right thing, but when a council officer commits misconduct that results in an avoidable death, why are they not criminally prosecuted? Here we are, with pervasive local authority law breaking, hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves, and a Government who plan to cut the rights that can save their lives.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman is making a very moving and powerful speech, but is not the reality that if every single EHCP was properly diagnosed and the need expressed, it would impose an honest but unachievable burden on the state? Will he acknowledge that and address how we come to terms with it?
Chris Coghlan
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention and I completely disagree. Think about the autistic boy I was talking about at the start of my speech. He has been out of school for seven years and his father has quit his job to look after him. We have lost a lifetime’s earnings from that person and we have the costs of social services. I am convinced that by the time we take all that into account, an effective system based on effective early intervention, rigorous accountability for local authorities and legally enforceable rights would, in the long run, be far cheaper than what we have today.
The public will ask Members of this House what they knew about this scandal of hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves while there are myths about over-diagnosis and everything else, when they knew it, and what they did about it.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
SEND provision is a fraught and highly emotional issue, because of the stakes at play: education, inclusion and, above all, dignity. I am pleased to see so many colleagues here from across the House, with the exception of only a couple of parties. Like others, I want to share the experiences of my constituents.
A few months ago, I met the senior leadership team at Cornwall Education Learning Trust, the organisation that runs the majority of the primary and secondary schools in my constituency. To their credit, they acknowledged that they have not always got things right, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. They were candid about the reason why, which is that, without an EHCP, they simply do not have the funding to support many of the children who need it most.
Demand for EHCPs is incredibly high. Cornwall council receives over 100 requests every single month, yet in 2024 it was ranked as the second-worst local authority in the entire country for issuing EHCPs within the required timeframe of 20 weeks. The causes are clear: a shortage of educational psychologists, the complexity of multi-agency co-ordination, and a system overwhelmed by demand. The consequences for children in my constituency are devastating, and I want to mention some of them.
One of my constituents has an adopted daughter with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Her school submitted a referral for an EHCP in March 2024. The council rejected it, her father fought back through appeals and a tribunal, and the council eventually conceded—an all-too-common farce, as we have heard. At the end of all that, the council still failed to produce a completed plan until 2026. That is two years of his daughter’s education lost. Another constituent has been waiting since August 2025 for the outcome of his daughter’s educational psychologist assessment. They are still waiting and his daughter remains without suitable provision. A third constituent’s son has not had appropriate education for a significant period. His school cannot meet his needs, he is not attending, and his family are waiting for an EHCP. Three families, three children, all failed by a system that was supposed to protect them.
The Government’s White Paper promises a £1.8 billion investment in specialist support, including educational psychologists, and commits to training over 200 more psychologists per year from 2026, putting mental health support in every school, and reducing the postcode lottery and the attainment gap. I welcome that ambition, but I say to Ministers that the consultation closes on 18 May and families cannot wait until 2029 for legislative change.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
One of the things that shocked me most when I was elected was how much we are failing children with special educational needs. We all get those emails in our inbox, and they are heartrending. When we meet those parents, we can see the stress and the strain etched in their faces, and we can only imagine what it is like for the child to be in a school where they feel that they are not understood and they are not supported. How we are treating these people at the moment is shocking.
I really welcome the fact that the Government are trying to do something to change that situation and to make it better. I worry, though, that we need to make sure that there are the resources to deliver what those families deserve. Obviously that means money, but it also means the educational psychologists and the other expertise that we need, and proper training for all school staff so they know how to deal with the various needs of the children in their school. I also worry that parents cannot and must not lose the ability to take action to fight for their children’s rights.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that strengthening inclusion in mainstream schools and maintaining legally enforceable protections for children and young people should not be competing games?
Charlotte Cane
I agree; we must not set things up in competition.
I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what is she going to do to make sure that every school in every area has the specialist resources it needs to deliver for its children? How is she going to make sure that rural areas such as mine in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have access to those resources for all schools and all children? It takes longer and therefore it costs more to get those across the area. What is she going to put in place to make sure that parents retain the right to fight for and enforce their children’s rights?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I did not want to intervene, because I could see that the Member was going to speak very briefly, but interventions are not helping other Members in the Chamber.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
For too long, parents and carers in Gloucester have had to fight a broken system that was not delivering the best chance in life for their children. This Government inherited a SEND system that did not include parents and carers in the conversation, did not value their children and had led to a complete breakdown of trust between families and the system that was meant to support them. I am pleased that this Government have made fixing that system a top priority. As Gloucester’s MP, I have always believed that every child in my city deserves the best start in life, and I hope that these reforms will restore trust in the system and ensure that every child with SEND gets the support they deserve.
When I talk to constituents about SEND, I often hear the same reflection: the previous Government never listened to them, did not include them in those discussions and did not take them seriously. I know that Ministers have been clear that these reforms had to be done with parents and carers and families, and I am really pleased to see that they have made good on that promise and continue to do so; I hope that they will continue that approach through the latest consultation.
In my city of Gloucester, I have been listening to parents and carers too. I have met dozens of parents in my surgeries, I ran a community consultation so that families could say what they wanted to see in the White Paper, and I hosted a brilliant parents and carers roundtable in the city centre. From that, I was pleased to produce my “SEND in Gloucester” report, which I presented to the Minister earlier this year.
Residents made several recommendations in that report, and an important one was for there to be more support early on. Parents and carers felt that they often spotted the signs of additional need early, but it took years for any formal support to be introduced. Often the support would only come at a crisis point, when early intervention could have prevented the crisis in the first place. I also visited Dingley’s Promise early years centre in Coney Hill, which shows the benefits of early intervention and the importance of targeted support at the early years level. I am pleased that the Government have listened to the recommendations of Gloucester residents on early intervention by putting more money into early years as part of these reforms.
Another key takeaway from the report was a lack of funding and capacity for school special educational needs co-ordinators. Parents and carers repeatedly highlighted that many SENCOs are working tirelessly but are fighting the broken system. They felt that making SENCOs full time, providing high levels of specialist training and giving them a more senior role in schools could have a big impact. If I could make one ask of the Minister today, it would be to consider extending the Government’s commitment to providing the best possible school experience for children with SEND by providing for a full-time, fully qualified SENCO in every Gloucester school.
Finally, I have spoken to many residents since these reforms were announced. While the reaction has been mostly positive, I know that concerns remain in communities across my city, particularly among those families whose children are receiving an EOTAS package. I understand that, and I will continue to raise their voices with Ministers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance today. I want to again underline the importance of this moment. We must give our schools and teachers the resources they need to deliver for our children, we must rebuild trust with families who have been so badly let down in the past, and we must get these reforms right so that every child with SEND can have the best chance in life.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this debate. We have heard varying views on the question of demand, with some people saying that it has not gone up at all and that others saying it has. I have relied on the House of Commons Library to tell me that since 2015 demand for EHCPs has ballooned by 140% and that in 2025 there were 13 times more people waiting for an autism assessment than there were in 2019.
Hon. Members across the House have described very effectively the extraordinary diagnosis of a system that has been unable to meet demand, so I will not replay the tape. The 98% tribunal success rate is symptomatic of that, and it is pretty shocking. It shows that the system is having to be fought against systemically, which is deeply worrying. Members across the House have replayed case studies from their own inboxes, but I do not have time to go into the cases of child Y, child L, child F, child D and the many others, all of whom have finally come to their Member of Parliament because they could see no way through and because the computer had said no. It has come to that, for them, but that should not be the case.
In the time remaining, I want to take a strategic approach and look upstream. In March last year, the Secretary of State for Health said that he was sold on the idea that overdiagnosis was at the root cause of mental health illness. On 1 June, I asked the Secretary of State for Education whether any work was being done between her Department and the Health Department on what was causing the increased demand on the special educational needs system. She said that she was very concerned indeed about that. I then waited until 1 December before asking what she and the Health Secretary had done in the intervening seven months. I think it was the Minister for School Standards who kindly said that she was very concerned about it. Five days later, the Health Secretary announced that there was going to be a six-month study into the causes of the increase in demand on the special educational needs system, and that it would report in the summer. I do not think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. As a nation, we need to increase our understanding of this phenomenon that we are experiencing—
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I should like to declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as the parent of a child with an EHCP. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing the debate. This is a deeply important subject and, like many Members across the House, I have an inbox full of cases of SEND parents who are struggling under the current system. Let us be clear: it is absolutely broken.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether the current system, or indeed our society as a whole, has the ability to meet all presenting needs. I would like to clarify something: unmet need does not magically disappear. It does not just go away. It festers and grows, which is what we see under the current system. We see children’s needs not being met at the earliest opportunity and being met only when they reach an absolute crisis point. By and large, that is what happens, and we end up with a system that ultimately lets down children.
The need for SEND reform and the work that the Minister has undertaken on the White Paper goes to the heart of who we are as a party. Equitable and equal education for everyone goes to the heart of socialist, progressive politics, and that is who we are. It is crucial that a child is not excluded from receiving education on the same basis as their able-bodied peers just because they are disabled or have an additional need. It is completely unacceptable if that continues to happen to them. The system that we have is antagonistic and adversarial. It puts fight and struggle at the heart of what should be the norm for every parent: obtaining a decent education for their children.
I would like to speak to some of the concerns—I notice that I have a short amount of time left—around the White Paper, because some do remain. There needs to be accountability in the system. If it is going to work, parents, schools and councils have to trust that the system will work. Accountability is about understanding, if my child’s school—hypothetically and realistically—does not do what it is supposed to do, how I make the school do it and what recourse I have to ensure that it does so.
Jen Craft
We provide for it by meeting need at the earliest opportunity. It is about addressing it before it reaches crisis point, unlike the situation we are in now. We would not do this for any other condition. We would not say, “There are too many people out there with cancer—we should stop diagnosing cancer.” It would not work like that. We do not turn around and say, “Too many people are presenting a need”—we meet it. Imagine if we addressed the education system as a whole like we address SEND education—as a problem to be solved and not an opportunity that exists to create young people who are willing, equipped and able to go out into the world and shape our future society and our world. Why do we not see that opportunity for SEND children, as we do for the wider school population?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is so much untapped potential in the parents who are currently trapped at home trying to support their children who are not being supported into schools? When I hosted a recent roundtable with parents in my constituency, I met ex-teachers, teaching assistants and educational psychologists, and none of them are at work because they are not being supported.
Jen Craft
I agree 100%. We could work out the lifetime cost of a parent being out of work to care for their child who should be in education or in a suitable school, or even the cost of a parent having to draw back from working a certain amount of hours or from reaching where they could go in their career because of the stress that the system puts on them. That leads to some of the concerns I have with the White Paper.
This White Paper has to work—I want to start from that basis—for families like mine, for people who are struggling and for people who see the current system as failing them. It has to work, and it is in danger of not working on a few points. No. 1 is trust, which I mentioned. The second one is the workforce. That cannot be solved by the Department for Education on its own. A crucial part of that workforce comes from the Department of Health and Social Care. The Secretary of State for Health must publish a statement on how he will deliver the SEND workforce, particularly the paediatric allied healthcare workforce. Otherwise, I am sorry to say that this plan will struggle to get off the ground.
Finally, if there is one thing that can be brought to this plan that will change how the system works and the stress and strain it puts on parents, it is support for parents. Quite often, parents feel like they are under attack. If your child receives a diagnosis of SEND, you feel like your parenting method, who you are and the benefits you bring to your family are constantly questioned, and you do not know where to go for support. If we can support parents to implement the same intervention measures at home, as well as giving them the respite they need and the support to know they are not alone and to be able to properly support their child through education, this White Paper can truly deliver on the promise it holds.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this profoundly important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing it. SEND is one of the most common and most urgent issues raised by struggling families and overstretched schools in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, as it is for all Members from across the House.
The situation cannot be allowed to continue. We all agree that the system is broken and needs to be improved. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the scale of the crisis and are attempting to bring forward wide-ranging reform, but good intentions must be matched by good policy. Consequently, I believe that a number of concerns must be addressed urgently if the reforms are to succeed.
First, on consultation, the Government have told us that their new framework is being shaped in partnership with families, schools and other stakeholders, but serious questions remain about the adequacy and scope of that consultation. Recent reports show that Members have been effectively guided by the Department of Education on how they should respond to the consultation. That risks fatally undermining confidence in the process; consultation must be genuine and transparent.
Secondly, on implementation, it is concerning that local authorities are already being instructed to begin reforming their systems by developing local plans and reshaping provision before the consultation has even concluded. That risks creating confusion, inconsistency and instability in a system that is already under immense strain, and it risks the perception that public consultation and consent for vital policy proposals are being treated as an afterthought, rather than as central to policy making process.
Thirdly, on capacity, ambitious reforms require the workforce to deliver them. We need clarity on how many trained professionals will be required, how initiatives such as the proposed experts-at-hand service will be staffed, and how training for teachers will be delivered. Without that detail, we run the risk of expectations outstripping reality.
Finally, on accountability, any changes to tribunal arrangements must not weaken families’ ability to challenge decisions, not least because they have been so successful in appealing them—we have heard the 99% figure. For many parents, the tribunal system is not an optional preference but a safeguard of last resort that must be preserved.
Will the Government ensure that the ongoing consultation genuinely reflects the voices of families, schools and experts? Will it provide clarity on workforce training and funding? Will it protect the rights of families to challenge decisions? Will it ensure that reforms are implemented in a way that is transparent, evidence-led and properly resourced and has built-in accountability? If we get this right, we can transform lives for the better, but if we get it wrong, children will bear the cost for years to come.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We know the stories, the concerns, the trauma, and the battles and fights. Of course, we know the embedded inequality in the system, in which parents with little agency have little voice. But what is so important is that we recognise that the Children and Families Act 2014 ultimately never came with the funding, staffing, resourcing or culture change that were needed. I will focus on three things today: culture, resourcing and funding, and governance.
On culture, although we have heard about rising attainment for so many children, we know that other children just never get that opportunity. Their right to an education is denied. We must change the pedagogy in the education system to make it an inclusive environment, and to ensure that the high-stakes behaviours approach is ended, because it denies neuroatypical children an education. We must address that clash, which is still being driven by a results-based system, and consider children and their long-term future more holistically.
I certainly encourage the Minister to look at the work of Sir Ken Robinson, who understood that the system needs to be built around the child, as opposed to the child fitting into the system, and the importance of developing a nurturing environment. In York, we talk about belonging going beyond nurturing. We need to consider how we address the security that a child needs to thrive in any environment, putting that framing around the child and integrating it with a trauma-informed approach. We have heard about adoption today and the trauma that those children experience, but we know that so many children have adverse childhood experiences such as violence and neglect in the home and have challenging pasts that have intersected with their SEND needs, so we must ensure that that approach is put in place.
On funding, if we can move resources in this place to fund our national security, we can move funding to secure children’s security as well. We need to resource the system, and not only financially—although without that, it will never succeed—but also, as many have said, with a workforce plan that is integrated with the NHS workforce plan, so that we know when resources will come on stream.
That brings me to governance. Risk and responsibility sit in the wrong place in the system, which is why we must look at the impact of the academisation programme on where the lines of accountability are. It is almost impossible to hold those schools to account in the system we have now. I will certainly want to extend these discussions with the Minister when I get the opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
9.35 pm
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate. It is clear from the passionate contributions we have heard that the problems are widespread and the SEND system is completely broken. We have all heard the anguish of parents, and we have read the dreadful stories of desperate children who have lost their lives because of failures in this system.
In that context, I welcome the Government’s recent White Paper as an important step in the right direction. We have to address the growing need and, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said so passionately, we cannot limit provision because there is too much need. The earlier we identify need and start addressing it, the better the outcomes will be for children, parents, families and society as a whole.
We have had to wait for this White Paper, but putting the delays to one side, we are here now and the Liberal Democrats welcome the central focus on inclusion through improving support in mainstream settings. If children with SEND can attend a local school, they can stay connected with their friends and be part of their local community, and their family can engage better with their school. Inclusion bases are welcome, and they include the one being opened at King Edward VI community college in my constituency, with a focus on bringing children back into school after dropping out, following a difficult transition into year 7, and helping them to become part of the school community again. This model has good potential to succeed if properly resourced. However, many questions remain about funding, children’s rights and staffing.
On funding, the £4 billion pledge to accompany the upcoming reforms, plus capital spending and the council debt write-off, are welcome, but we are worried that the Government are holding councils to ransom by tying this debt relief to restrictions on special school expansion. The Government must also provide clarity on where the new funding, including the council deficit write-off, is coming from. The Liberal Democrats are very concerned that other areas of the wider schools budget may be cut, even though there is nothing left to give. The Government have introduced some good policies but have failed to fully fund them, including breakfast clubs, the expansion of free school meals, even teacher pay rises, and, today, the healthy school standards. That will be more expensive, so will it be fully funded for schools?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Caroline Voaden
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
Schools and local authorities are already at breaking point and are now being asked to deliver even more, including running two SEND systems in parallel during the transition period.
On parental rights, parents have expressed deep concern about changes to the tribunal system. Removing power from SEND tribunals to direct a local authority to name a specific setting will give parents even less opportunity to choose a setting that suits their child. Given that currently 99% of tribunal cases are won by families against the local authority, how can we trust that local authorities will suddenly start getting it right under the new system?
The Liberal Democrats are clear that stripping back parents’ ability to challenge the system is unacceptable. The anxiety of parents is understandable. Many are worried that their child will lose existing support or not receive the support they need under the new system. Will the Minister guarantee that legal rights will not be stripped away, that settled placements will not be disrupted, and that accountability, including meaningful routes of appeal, will remain strong and effective? It is absolutely vital that children and families remain at the heart of these reforms and retain the key rights that they have.
On staffing, we welcome the Experts at Hand service to embed specialists such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists into mainstream schools, but we need a credible workforce plan to see how the Government are going to recruit and train all the staff needed and encourage trained specialists back into the profession. I am concerned about the need for more learning support staff—the people who are absolutely crucial to delivering these reforms and ensuring that mainstream inclusion works effectively. Schools are being forced to cut learning support staff due to the financial pressures they are facing, but a SEND system focused on inclusion simply cannot be implemented without them, so I would like to hear further detail from the Minister about how the Government believe schools can deliver an inclusive approach for all children without funding more support staff.
Away from budgets and staffing, there are other changes that we can make in the way that we run our schools that would make them accessible for all children. Curriculum reform is vital to inclusion. Learning how to express and process emotion through music, drama, creative arts, sport and outdoor play is vital not just for children’s mental health, but for their emotional development, and it simply must be given more space. We believe that the current direction of travel is the right one, but all these reforms must be fully funded, fully staffed and fully consulted upon with those who will be impacted most by the changes—the parents and the children with SEND who are so often not heard.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging and passionate debate about an issue that affects each and every one of us, and many of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. He has been a passionate and determined champion for parents of children with special educational needs, and I thank him for all his hard work in this area. He was pragmatic and constructive, and he reflected what I have also heard from many parents, teachers and council leaders. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, specifically the parents who have reached out to have their voices heard today.
This issue affects each and every one of us. While I will focus on the much-delayed White Paper, let me be clear to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work constructively with the Government where we see that meaningful progress can be made. I acknowledge that the system is creaking under its own weight. Since I was elected in 2019, almost weekly I have met parents who are tired of fighting a system that was designed to help them and that enshrines their rights in law, but has become a barrier to supporting their children. I have campaigned for those parents, so I want these reforms to work, but I say to the Minister that Opposition Members will not shy away from asking questions that are difficult for the Government to answer. We will not allow the Government to spin their way out of this, because too much is at stake. I hope that she can work constructively with me in that spirit.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am inundated with correspondence from constituents from across Keighley and the wider Bradford district challenging the quality of EHCPs and the diagnosis procedure. One of my big concerns is that the White Paper reforms will lead to a standardised approach associated with the ISPs that will be rolled out. Does the shadow Minister agree with me about the direction that these reforms are going in under this Labour Government?
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend makes the same point that has been made to me by many parents about the one-size-fits-all approach of these reforms. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to try to reassure some of those parents, because parents want answers and the children and families who are affected deserve them.
I have spoken to many parents and representative groups. There is a huge amount of anxiety about these reforms—a view that is shared by many parent-carer forums—which has not been helped by the delay to the White Paper or the drip-drip briefings suggesting that EHCPs would simply be scrapped. The Conservative position is clear: any reforms that come forward must enshrine parental rights in law and the Government must not water down those rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Vince, you have just stumbled into the Chamber—I don’t think so.
Saqib Bhatti
I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is very little detail in the White Paper around deliverability. That concern has been raised to me by a number of council leaders, headteachers and parents. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains “uncertain”. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty, but the OBR is not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gap. When the Labour party was in opposition, it had 14 years to think about what it wanted to do, so I hope that the Minister can provide some of those answers today.
The issue of timelines was raised during the debate. We all agree that the reforms are urgently needed, but full implementation is not expected until 2028-29 at the earliest. Changes to EHCPs will not begin until around September 2030, so a child who is now six will be 10 or 11 before they and their family feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). Will the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHCP reform takes effect?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Parents in my constituency who have been in the SEND system are really fearful that we will have the White Paper and more change will be proposed, when the key element of delivery is local councils. The problem is that the situation is so patchy. Some councils are absolutely appalling—one in my area had an excoriating report—but others manage; nobody is brilliant, but some try to get by and do the EHCPs. How are we going to tackle patchy delivery?
Saqib Bhatti
I will come to councils and their funding shortly, but my right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. I hope the Minister heard him and will be able to provide an answer.
A number of parents have written to me, asking if I can put their questions directly to the Minister. Natasha and Lindy want to know why a dilution of parental rights has been proposed. Why are the Government removing the legal right to appeal, especially when 98% of cases are currently won by parents and carers? My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made this point very eloquently. If the logic is to reduce the cost of provision by removing some of those rights, the Minister should say so plainly. Parents need that clarity and that level of honesty.
We do welcome some points, including the principle of support in schools, evidence-led packages, and the idea of more speech and language therapists. There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is essential, and a statement of intent on that is most welcome. I want to focus briefly on speech and language therapists, because I campaigned on this issue as a Back-Bench MP with my constituent Mikey Akers and the famous footballer Chris Kamara. We met the relevant Health Minister more than a year ago; as Mikey said, in March 2024, he met the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who promised an action plan for speech and language therapy, but more than one year on we still have not seen anything.
A point has been raised about liaising with the Department of Health and Social Care. Has the Minister spoken to the Health Minister? Has there been any progress? The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has been very clear that delivering the Experts at Hand service will require an SLT workforce to be incorporated into the 10-year workforce plan, with ringfenced funding. In a written question in March, I asked the Minister how many speech and language therapists will be required to deliver the Experts at Hand service. She gave a great answer, but she avoided giving me the answer that I needed on numbers, so I hope she can answer how many specialists will be needed and where they will come from.
The British Dyslexia Association has also posed a question to me. One in three children in our classrooms need support for dyslexia. Will the Minister confirm whether the Experts at Hand service will include support for children with dyslexia, and whether specialist dyslexia teachers will form part of that workforce?
Let me turn to inclusion in the mainstream. At a recent meeting with Solihull school leaders last month, I heard serious concerns about the capacity pressures that the Government’s approach could place on mainstream schools. There was consensus around the principles, but there was also consensus that far more detail is needed on what inclusion actually means in policy terms and how gaps in staff training and funding will be filled.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I was in the same meeting, and one of the big concerns was the loss of the special school planned for Tamworth Lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that that not only detracts from parents and pupils who would benefit, but puts additional pressures on mainstream schools?
Saqib Bhatti
I could not have said it better myself. That issue was in my borough, but the truth is that there are special schools across the country where the funding has been taken away. This is going to be essential, because we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. Will the Minister explain to those teachers how mainstream schools will be supported in terms of capacity, funding and training as these reforms are rolled out? The founder of the North Solihull Additional Needs Support Group has asked if there will be a legal backing for ISPs, and a number of Members have also made points on enforceability.
I want to get straight to the funding point, which is where I will end my remarks. At the Budget, the OBR identified a £6 billion SEND funding black hole. When the Minister was asked about that previously, she used the word “scaremongering”, but these are not our figures; they are figures from the OBR, based on information provided by the Government. Will the Minister confirm how large the shortfall is? Having looked at the numbers, I think it has shortened, but maybe she will be able to give a bit more clarity. If the gap was funded entirely from in the DFE’s £69 billion budget, it would imply a 4.9% real fall in mainstream schools’ spending per pupil—this is according to the OBR, by the way. There is no spending review until 2028-29, so maybe the Minister can give me some clarity on which Departments might be giving up their money for the sake of these SEND reforms. I hope she can provide some answers; I will write to her with the questions that I have not been able to ask.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I am grateful for the huge interest across the Chamber in this critically important issue. Tonight, we heard from so many different Members of Parliament the voices of children and families; I thank MPs for the efforts they have made to listen to those children and families, and to bring their voices to me personally and into the Chamber. I appreciate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for bringing this important debate to the House and for his long-standing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I think we have all heard the depth and strength of concern, and the agreement that at the moment, the system is broken and not working for so many families.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Georgia Gould
I do not have much time, so I am not going to take interventions. I want to be able to answer the points that have been put to me.
Too many children have been left without provision, and parents try to explain to their children why they are not at school alongside their friends. Too many parents are having to battle—we have heard the word “fight” time and time again in this conversation. I say to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and to everyone else in the Chamber that I am committed to working constructively and on a cross-party basis on this issue. It is too important to not take all views into account and work together, so I really welcome opportunities to talk to individuals about the issues that have been raised in the debate. However, I will not apologise for taking longer to develop these reforms, because that time has been spent talking to thousands of parents, young people and teachers around the country to make sure their voices were embedded in what we put out for consultation. I also make no apology for taking time to transition into these reforms. As we have heard from so many Members across the Chamber, trust is low, and it is really important that we build the new system with children and families.
That does not mean, though, that we are not acting now. The investment we have been talking about is going into our communities straightaway, whether that is the £3.7 billion that we are already starting to invest in specialist places around the country or the £4 billion that we are investing in the services we have talked about today: Experts at Hand, the educational psychologists and speech and language therapists who will now be available to local schools; and the inclusive mainstream fund, which will be going directly into schools. Those are huge investments that this Government are making. The OBR made its projections before it had seen our reform plans and the huge investments we are making, including new investment going in during 2028-29, which I know the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East will have seen.
I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who has raised the importance of early intervention and of putting in as much support as possible as quickly as possible. So many families have told me that if support had been available much quicker, their needs would not have escalated—they would not be out of education and would not have needed to leave their local schools. We have also heard about the importance of inclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke powerfully about why it is so critical that children with special educational needs and disabilities are at the heart of the education system. They have so much to offer, and every school should be an inclusive school, but that does not mean that we do not also need special schools, and the £3.7 billion of investment I have talked about will create new specialist places.
Let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. First and most importantly, our intention in these reforms is to improve outcomes for children. That is our guiding principle—our No. 1 outcome. The hon. Member mentioned the long waiting lists to which so many families are exposed. Addressing those waits is the point of the reforms. We are putting in place educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and so many others, so that schools can draw on them and children can access that support without a lengthy wait or a battle for an EHCP and a diagnosis. Under our reform plans, that provision will be available as part of the mainstream system.
Critically, education, health and care plans will remain, and they will be available for children who need them. We know that too many children are forced to apply to get an EHCP because their needs are not being met in mainstream schools. The majority of children with special educational needs and disabilities in our school system do not have an EHCP, but are on the SEND register. They are the children who are often being badly let down. Our reforms will extend rights for those children, including new statutory duties on schools to develop inclusion plans and individual support plans. There will be new layers of support with targeted and targeted plus, new national standards, and new duties on teacher training. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) spoke powerfully about the importance of teacher training, with every single teacher trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that every class is accessible.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked expertly about the issue. We are grateful for the work of her Committee and the huge amount of time it put in to its report. I will address her points about transition and accountability within the transition. There are safeguards that I think will reassure parents: every child who is in a special school will remain in a special school, we will build the new system before anyone transitions into that new system, and somebody with an existing EHCP will move on to either an EHCP or an individual support plan, and that will be backed by the tribunal.
There were lots of questions about individual support plans and accountability. Ofsted will be looking at individual support plans and developing a new complaints process with an independent role. Importantly, if a family does not feel that their needs are being met by the mainstream system, they will still be able to request a needs assessment and that will be backed by the tribunal. There will still be access to the tribunal, and the tribunal will remain an important part of the system.
We do not want families to have to go to a tribunal, though. We want to deliver a system that works, where families’ voices are put at the heart of decision making and where accountability sits not on the shoulders of families, but that it is for us—the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Government—to hold local authorities to account. I was asked why we are we going ahead with local SEND reform plans and asking councils to develop them. We are clear that councils need to deliver today for children with special educational needs and disabilities; as we have heard in the debate, there is too much failure and we are determined to hold councils to account.
We are committed to a full consultation. We welcome comments on every aspect of these proposals, and I ask everyone in this Chamber to make sure that you are holding events, talking to your constituents and pointing them towards the consultation, because this is a generational opportunity to change the system. Families have been failed for too long, and it is only by listening to them that we will get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There were far too many uses of “you” and “your” throughout speeches today. Members need to check the language they use. I call Gregory Stafford to wind up.
Gregory Stafford
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that the speeches we have heard today have been wide-ranging and passionate. I thank all those who have spoken, all those who unfortunately did not manage to speak and the many Members who supported this debate. I am leading it, but plenty of Members across the House supported it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
The one thing that united every speaker in this debate was a clear desire to improve a system that is not working for young people in our constituencies. We may disagree about the exact process to get there, but I say to the Minister that nobody in this House is expressing anything other than what they have heard from their own constituents. In some cases, that may be support for the Government’s proposals, but we have to be honest that many of our constituents are expressing concerns. The Minister should not squander this Government’s opportunity. I know there are antibodies from Government Members whenever I open my mouth about anything, but I am passionate about this issue, and I think that we—together, on both sides of the House—can improve what the Government are doing and ensure that the legal protections remain, while improving the system.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in writing a number of the questions asked by Members across the House that she was unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. I also hope that she will assess the responses to the White Paper with an open mind, with the aim of ensuring that every child has a legal right to the education that he or she deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.
Business without Debate
Young Cancer Patients: Experiences and Outcomes
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to secure this important debate on a subject that matters deeply to me in my role as parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust, and as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer in children and young people. It is an issue that matters profoundly to my constituents. In Mansfield, I am contacted regularly by young people, by parents and by families whose lives have been turned upside down by a cancer diagnosis. They write to me not just about treatment but about their wider experience—the fear, the uncertainty, and the disruption to education, work and relationships. They write because they want to be heard, and I hope that tonight the House, and indeed the Government, will listen.
Every few hours in the United Kingdom, a young person hears the words, “You have cancer”. It is mostly blood cancer, including leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma—the most common cancers among children, teenagers and young adults in the UK. The reality is stark: more young people are getting cancer. Rates have risen by a quarter since the early 1990s, and the increase is projected to continue. Cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death among teenagers and young adults in the UK, but even for those who survive, the impact can be lifelong—physically, emotionally and socially—especially when the right support is not there. This is happening at a time when life is already tough for young people, many of whom are facing economic uncertainty, struggling with mental health issues, and worrying about their futures. A cancer diagnosis compounds all that, often at the most formative stage of life.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue, which is clearly very important to him—he has illustrated that through his commitment to these debates, which he always gets involved in. I congratulate him on that.
In Northern Ireland, approximately 60 children under the age of 16, and 80 teenagers and young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, are diagnosed with cancer each year. Although these cases are rare and account for only 1% of all diagnoses, they require a highly specialised, family-centred approach. Around 87% of young people survive for at least one year, and 78% survive for five years or more. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improvements can be made to ensure that our children have the best possible treatment, regardless of where they live? There should be no box for them; they should get treatment wherever they are in the United Kingdom.
Steve Yemm
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
This is Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month, and it is right that we use this moment to shine a light on a group that is too often overlooked: young people who fall between children’s and adult services, and whose needs are too often not fully recognised. Before 1990, young people with cancer were treated either on children’s wards or alongside much older adults, with very little recognition of their distinct needs. The Teenage Cancer Trust changed that. It pioneered specialist care for 13 to 24-year-olds, creating dedicated units within the NHS that are staffed by expert nurses and youth workers, and which are designed to support not just treatment but the whole person. Today, 28 units across the UK help young people to receive care, alongside others their own age, in environments that protect their independence, dignity and mental health. At that age, cancer is not just a medical condition; it disrupts young people’s education, relationships, identity and plans for the future.
We know that when young people receive age-appropriate care, their experiences and outcomes improve significantly, but only around half of young people with cancer currently benefit from this type of specialist support. One of the most critical issues facing young people with cancer is the speed of diagnosis. Unlike many adult cancers, those affecting young people are often rare and cannot be prevented. Blood cancer, which is the most common cancer for young people, does not have the same focus or understanding as other types of cancers. That means early diagnosis is absolutely crucial, yet too many young people face delays.
Awareness of cancer symptoms among young people remains worryingly low. Fewer than half of 18 to 24-year-olds can identify key warning signs—things like unexplained lumps, pain, tiredness or significant weight changes. In Mansfield, I have heard directly from families about the consequences of that lack of awareness: multiple GP visits, uncertainty and delays before being referred for diagnosis. Indeed, nearly half of young people with cancer report attending three or more GP appointments before being referred. That experience was echoed by the family of 11-year-old Joel from Mansfield, who in 2024 sadly passed away after a nine-month battle with acute myeloid leukaemia. He made four initial GP visits and presented with a range of symptoms, which were dismissed as simply bruising from football or as a laundry detergent allergy. After the symptoms worsened, it took a second opinion from another GP and an emergency A&E visit before the cancer was diagnosed correctly.
It is important to recognise that such delays are not just clinical; they are often psychological. Evidence shows that waiting two months or more for a diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of anxiety and depression. I ask the Minister, how will the Government ensure that teenagers and young adults are not simply funnelled through paediatric diagnostic pathways, but are recognised as a distinct group with distinct needs? What steps will be taken to raise awareness, both among young people and across primary care, of the signs and symptoms of cancer in this particular age group?
The second issue that I want to address is psychological support. A cancer diagnosis at any age is devastating, but for a young person it is often overwhelming. They face fears about survival, about treatment and about their future. Their education is interrupted, their friendships are disrupted and their sense of identity can be shaken. It is deeply concerning. Studies including research from Young Lives vs Cancer, which provides specialist social care support, show that 90% of young people undergoing cancer treatment experience anxiety, 83% report loneliness, 70% experience depression and nearly half experience panic attacks.
Steve Yemm
In view of the time, I will continue, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
These are not marginal figures. They represent the overwhelming majority, yet despite a clear NHS commitment that every young person should have access to mental health support, provision remains inconsistent. In effect, it is a postcode lottery. Five years ago, the Teenage Cancer Trust warned of that in its “#NotOK” report, but today progress remains limited.
In Mansfield, families have raised with me the difficulty of accessing timely mental health support during and after treatment. The family of Eilidh, a 23-year-old from Mansfield who was diagnosed with a rare lung cancer at the age of 20 after initially being reassured that nothing was wrong, made that point to me. She underwent the removal of an entire lung, but what followed was a lack of clear aftercare and support, with no structured rehabilitation, limited guidance on recovery and ongoing difficulty in navigating care. Her experience highlights not just the physical impact of cancer treatment, but the confusion, anxiety and gaps in support that too many young people face once treatment ends. I ask the Minister what funding and timelines are in place to ensure that every young person with cancer can access specialist psychological support, and not just during treatment but for at least two years afterwards.
The third issue is access to clinical trials. Clinical trials are essential to improving outcomes and developing new treatments, but teenagers and young adults are significantly less likely than other age groups to take part, not because they do not wish to but because the system does not work for them. They are often excluded because of age restrictions: they are too old for paediatric trials and too young for adult trials. They are more likely to have rare cancers, meaning that fewer trials are available. I refer again to Joel from Mansfield: his family asked his doctors about opportunities to participate in a clinical trial, but were told that there were none. Even where trials exist, information can be difficult to find, both for clinicians and for parents.
The ambition has been clear—50% participation by 2025—but progress has been slow. No young person should miss out on a potentially lifesaving opportunity simply because of their age, so I ask the Minister how the Government will measure and report progress on improving access to clinical trials for young people, and what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure delivery.
Finally, I want to address the issue of data. Too often, young people with cancer are effectively invisible in the system. Data is not consistently collected, not consistently reported and not always broken down in a way that allows us to understand their experiences. Without good data, it is hard to identify inequalities, we cannot target improvements and we cannot ensure accountability. What steps will the Minister take to improve the collection and publication of age-specific data on cancer outcomes for teenagers and young adults?
To conclude, the issues I have spoken about today matter deeply to my constituents in Mansfield and to the young people facing cancer today across the country. They also matter to the families supporting them, and they matter to all of us who believe that no young person should face this disease without the care and support they deserve. The evidence is clear: when young people receive timely diagnosis, age-appropriate care, access to psychological support and opportunities to participate in clinical trials, their outcomes improve. The Teenage Cancer Trust has shown what is possible, but it cannot do it alone. If we are serious about improving outcomes, the commitments in the national cancer plan must be delivered with urgency, funding and accountability. We need to improve awareness, we need to remove barriers and we must ensure that young people are no longer overlooked or underserved.
I will close with a simple request to the Minister: will she commit, alongside the Secretary of State who promised me personally that he would do so, to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit to hear directly from young people to understand their experiences and to see at first hand the difference that specialist age-appropriate care can make? If we truly listen to those young people, we will know exactly what needs to change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this very important debate, which, as we heard, is taking place during Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month. I thank him for his very important work on the all-party parliamentary group on cancer in children and young people, as well as for his role as a parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust. I am grateful to him for the invitation he has just made for me to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit, which I would be very pleased to accept. I pay tribute to some of the fantastic charities that he and I have both worked with: Teenage Cancer Trust, Young Lives vs Cancer and Children with Cancer UK, to name just a few. They supported us to write the national cancer plan. Now that the plan is published, they will play a vital role in its delivery.
Cancer remains a leading cause of death for young people under the age of fourteen. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for those children and young people, who have their whole life ahead of them, to hear the words, “You have cancer,” not to mention those mums and dads who go through the nightmare of seeing their child suffer. It is true that 78% of children with cancer aged between eight and 15 said they were “very well looked after” by the NHS, but I will not be satisfied until that number reaches 100%. There are so many areas where we must do better, particularly when it comes to patient experience. My hon. Friend laid out clearly in his opening remarks what some of those areas are, so I will go through them one at a time.
Thanks to my excellent predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), we now have a plan that includes a dedicated chapter on children and young people setting out how the Government will address their unique needs. We will begin to shift the dial on detecting, diagnosing and treating cancers in young people, and we will continue to listen to young people and their families, through our patient experience panel, to ensure that lived experience sits at the heart of everything we do.
Chris Bloore
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate; he has been a champion on this issue since he came to this place. The Minister mentioned patient experience. One issue that has been brought to my attention in my surgeries is that, after the often intensive clinical process of a young person going through a cancer diagnosis, getting treatment and getting through the other side, the period after the all-clear is an intense time of social isolation. Significant mental health support is required to get them back and integrated into school, college or work. Would she be prepared to meet me and young people who have been through that experience to discuss how we can improve the system, so that they can integrate back into normal life as quickly and as efficiently as possible?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I will also commit to meeting him and the young people he mentions, perhaps in co-ordination with my visit to the Teenage Cancer Trust. I hope there will be plenty of opportunity to meet young people during that visit. It is a yes to both of those requests.
We heard from the children and young people cancer taskforce how many parents have been forced to cut back on food and other expenses to pay for the travel to treatment. When a child is diagnosed with cancer, their family’s only focus should be on helping them to recover and getting them well, not on whether they can afford the petrol or the bus fare to get to their next appointment. That is why, through the plan, we are investing up to £10 million a year to support families with travel costs. This fund will make the world of difference to parents. It does not matter what someone earns; if their child needs treatment, we will help to get them there.
We are also transforming the experience of care in hospital by making sure that every child and young person with cancer has access to high-quality, age-appropriate psychological support, which my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) both asked about. That support should be from diagnosis, through treatment and beyond; I will take on board the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for that support to last up to two years post treatment. He spoke about the importance of early referrals to teenage and young adult multidisciplinary teams, with youth support co-ordinators on hand to help young people to navigate the huge journey they are going to have to go on, with the emotional impact of cancer alongside challenges around education, perhaps fertility and their long-term wellbeing.
The Government are committed to diagnosing cancer in children and young people faster to ensure that they get the treatment and care they need as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend set out in his speech, this speed is of the utmost importance, so we will remove the barriers that stand in the way of timely diagnosis by making sure that young people’s needs are embedded into the design of neighbourhood health services.
Just before recess, the Minister for Care announced the first 27 of 250 one-stop health shops that will be up and running next year, with 120 planned by the end of this Parliament. These offer a new model of care, as set out in our 10-year plan for health, with better access to specialist support and the safe roll-out of AI.
Many colleagues—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)—have been pushing the Government for a long time to go further on research, which is why we are making research into improving outcomes for children, especially into kinder and more gentle treatments, a national research priority. The Department will take a more joined-up approach to research priorities using data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield urged us to do, so that efforts are focused where they can make the greatest difference. We will break down the barriers that prevent young people from accessing clinical trials, particularly those who do not often qualify for paediatric or adult trials, by requiring clinical justifications for age limits, while also strengthening data collection across the cancer pathway.
In the next few months, the Department will establish a reformed national cancer board, once a co-chair has been appointed to oversee and monitor the implementation of our cancer plan. The board will include a dedicated lead for children and young people’s cancer, ensuring that this work is driven forward with clear accountability and focus. They will make sure that we are staying on track. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will play his part in that too.
The Government believe that all children and young people, no matter their circumstances, deserve support to achieve the very best outcomes in life, but most importantly to live fulfilling and happy lives. Alongside our work on cancer, we are combating the drivers of ill health in children’s lives such as poor diet, damp homes, dirty air and a lack of opportunity. We have abolished the two-child benefit cap, taking half a million children out of destitution, shame and hunger. We have brought in free breakfast clubs and extended free school meals so that kids start school with hungry minds, not hungry bellies. We also introduced the soft drinks industry levy, a warm home discount scheme that reaches millions more, and a generational ban on smoking. Awaab’s law will cut pollution and clean up the air that our children breathe.
This year, I am determined to do everything I can for children and young people with cancer. I have my foot on the accelerator, and I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend in the months ahead on this work.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am pleased to speak about this statutory instrument, which as Members will see contains a set of technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. The instrument is designed to ensure that the regulations work exactly as intended, with clear, workable rules for regulators and building control professionals, and effective protections for third parties.
By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years to 4 April 2022. Forty-five developers have joined the responsible actors scheme. Together, they are responsible for remediating more than 2,500 buildings, at an estimated cost of around £4.1 billion. The scheme is backed by planning and building control prohibitions, which would be applied to eligible developers that decide not to join the scheme or have their membership revoked for non-compliance, as well as to entities they control. The amendments in the instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and their exceptions would operate in practice if a developer is prohibited in the future.
Since the scheme was launched in 2023, technical drafting issues and ambiguities have been identified. The purpose of the instrument is to address those issues, so that protections for residents and purchasers of property work as intended if prohibitions are needed.
First, the instrument will remove an ambiguity in the 2023 regulations. If a developer were to be prohibited, that developer should not be able to make building control applications, but the original regulations did not spell that out explicitly in the list of prohibited matters. The amendments resolve that by making clear that building control applications are included wherever the prohibitions apply. The amendments also update terminology, so that the process of issuing completion and partial completion certificates matches the way that building control now operates, preventing confusion for local authorities and private registered building control approvers.
Secondly, the instrument will ensure that the emergency repairs exception works properly. Under the exception, emergency safety repairs are allowed to go ahead if a developer is prohibited. For taller buildings, there is a route to get such work formally signed off afterwards, but an omission in the 2023 regulations means that that route does not currently exist for buildings below 18 metres in height. The amendments correct this, creating a route so that, should such a situation arise, urgent safety work can be properly checked and signed off for all buildings.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her place. I want to understand a bit more about the operation of the prohibitions list. I note from the Department’s webpage that there are no suppliers or providers on that list. Is that because no one has fallen foul of the regulations, or because they were so inadequately drafted in the first place that it was not possible to put people on the list?
Samantha Dixon
My hon. Friend tempts me to get into a debate about the efficacy of the original—
Samantha Dixon
I will simply say that although no prohibition has been effected, that is not to say that the Government would not do so in the future—I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government’s own documentation contradicts what the Minister has just said. Sections 9.1 to 9.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Government’s SI present the draft regulations as not requiring an impact assessment, and say that these are purely minor technical changes that will have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. However, when we look on the Government’s own website, it is interesting that there seem to be no firms on the prohibitions list. The Minister will be familiar with the Comer Group, for example, which was subject to a very significant fine of £7.8 million in Greenwich for what Greenwich council described as a “mutant development”, in the home constituency of the Minister for Housing and Planning. Has the Comer Group signed up to the scheme? If not, why is it not on the prohibitions list?
Samantha Dixon
The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific issue; I do not know the details of that particular development in that particular constituency, but I will write to him with the details of that particular business.
Steve Barclay
I am grateful that the Minister will write to me, but I simply point out to the House that this development was so notable that the Housing Minister raised it in opposition—he tabled parliamentary questions on this issue and flagged it in advance of the election. Two years on, it seems odd that Ministers do not know what has happened with it.
In reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, can the Minister name a single firm on the prohibitions list? If she cannot do so, given the fact that before the election the Government said they wanted to move quicker on this issue, why have they not done so?
Samantha Dixon
There are no firms on the prohibitions list. However, as I stated, the Government are prepared to use the sanctions available, should they be required in the future. I will fulfil my commitment to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the full details in due course, if he will permit me to do so.
Thirdly, the draft regulations strengthen the exception that allows normal maintenance to continue in occupied residential buildings. This exception is there to ensure that routine upkeep can carry on, and that residents are not put at risk if their freeholder or responsible entity has been prohibited. At present, there are technical issues with how the relevant building control processes are set out. The amendments clarify the procedural routes available to building control professionals, and they ensure that where the exception applies, those responsible can use either the local authority building control route or the private building control route effectively.
Fourthly, the draft regulations strengthen protections for homebuyers where a sale is already well advanced when a prohibition takes effect. As things stand, only the prohibited developer can apply for the exception needed to complete the transaction, which leaves purchasers reliant on a party that may not prioritise the application. That risks buyers being negatively affected by the prohibitions through no fault of their own. The amendments fix that issue by allowing the buyer to apply, giving homebuyers greater control and reducing the risk of avoidable delay.
Finally, the draft regulations resolve drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Some wording in the regulations created double negatives that could be read as limiting eligibility for the scheme to social housing providers, which was never the intention. The amendments remove that ambiguity. The draft regulations also remove a redundant notification requirement for developers, which served no practical purpose because planners would already rely on the official published list of prohibited developers. Taking it out simplifies the framework without affecting the planning prohibition.
In summary, these are technical but important improvements. They ensure that, if the prohibitions were ever applied, the prohibitions and exceptions would operate clearly and consistently, protect residents and homebuyers from unintended impacts and give building control bodies the necessary clarity to use the prohibitions and exceptions effectively. These amendments will make the system clearer and more robust. The intent of the scheme remains the same: to make sure that developers that built unsafe buildings take responsibility for making them safe, and, in doing so, protect leaseholders from unfair costs. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and appreciate the remarks Committee members have made already. Ensuring the safety of people’s homes is, of course, a vital part of the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the aftermath of the tragic loss of 72 lives in the disaster that was the Grenfell Tower fire, the previous Government began that process through key pieces of legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022. In many ways, the Opposition are pleased to see that work continue under this Government and the stewardship of the Minister.
Unfortunately, apparently not all parties see eye to eye on the matter. Changes to the planning system, including reforms to well intentioned safeguards such as the Building Safety Regulator, may be necessary. That is far from what Reform UK’s most senior designated spokesperson on housing said just before the recess. His comments cannot merely be described as misguided; they were insensitive to the point of being cruel and dismissive. That lamentable episode once again highlighted Reform’s inability to grasp the technicalities of many policy issues, and, critically, the inability of this one-man-band to muzzle its improperly vetted spokespeople and their shocking views.
Let me move on to the detail of the statutory instrument. The previous Government launched the responsible actors scheme in July 2023. The aim was clear and responsible: to use sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to recognise action taken by responsible developers to locate, assess, remediate or pay to remediate life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings with a height of 11 metres or more that they had developed or refurbished over the 30 years leading to April 2022, as the Minister said.
The other side of establishing the scheme was to create a responsible actors scheme prohibitions list, and I note the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire. The explanatory memorandum says that the Department
“will continue to monitor and publish data”
on that, but it appears that there is no data, so I would welcome it if the Minister copied me into her response to my right hon. Friend. The responsible actors scheme prohibitions list contains any eligible developer that is invited the scheme but declines to join, or that has its membership revoked for non-compliance with its conditions.
As we have heard, the changes the Government seek to make through these specific regulations are purely technical, and we will not divide the Committee on them. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the wider issue of building safety. As Committee members will know, the Building Safety Act’s leasehold protections and developer remediation contract do not apply to, and remediation orders and remediation contribution orders cannot be used for, buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, leaseholders could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with remediating fire safety defects, such as cladding. The Government have said that
“the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.]
In July 2025, they also said that they had investigated all buildings under 11 metres that had been brought to their attention since 2022, and explained that the vast majority had not required cladding remediation works and that lower-cost mitigation measures had often addressed the fire risks. However, that came alongside a promise to
“provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.”
That pledge was made in July 2025. Will the Minister update us on when further details on funding will be confirmed?
It is vital that work continues to make homes safer, including accelerating efforts to remove all dangerous cladding. I welcome the update the Secretary of State gave three weeks ago, announcing that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. However, that still leaves too many buildings coated in unsafe material; whether 100% or 9% are left, any home coated in dangerous cladding is a home too many. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am forced to agree with the hon. Member for Orpington—it does not come easily—about the Reform party spokesperson. He was not just a junior member of the Reform party but its official housing spokesperson, and his commentary on the Grenfell disaster and on the measures—for which there is cross-party support across the House—that must necessarily be taken to improve building regulation—
Gideon Amos
It is relevant because the regulations address the Grenfell tragedy. It is worth placing on record that the Reform spokesperson’s comment that,
“everyone dies in the end”,
is a totally unacceptable and monstrous response to the building safety tragedy and emergency that we face.
The statutory instrument makes necessary technical corrections to the building safety regime. The Liberal Democrats support those changes, which will ensure that the system functions as intended. We must never let a tragedy like Grenfell happen again; all parties should agree on that. However, the SI sits within a wider framework that is still somewhat lacking. There remains a concerning mismatch between the Building Safety Act and the PAS 9980 fire safety standard. That mismatch risks leaving serious defects unaddressed and standards must be aligned to ensure that all building safety risks are properly identified and remediated.
We are also concerned that the building safety levy will not provide sufficient funding for remediation and to support the sector as a whole, particularly the social housing sector. Too many leaseholders therefore remain exposed to costs that they should not have to bear. The Government must ensure that all leaseholders are protected from remediation costs, not just leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres in height. Although we support the statutory instrument, much more needs to be done to ensure that the building safety system works effectively and delivers safe homes for all.
Steve Barclay
I rise because I listened carefully to the Minister and there was an inherent contradiction in her opening remarks. The legislation was presented as minor, technical and not significant—in fact so insignificant that it has no impact assessment, as is referred to in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum. Yet it states in paragraph 5.3 that the legislation deals with
“developers who refuse to remediate life-critical fire safety defects”,
so we are talking about a hugely significant issue, on which many hon. Members in the Labour party have, post-Grenfell, quite rightly campaigned. It is an issue through which many home owners have been left in limbo.
One would have thought that legislation introduced to the House on that important issue, legislation which can remediate life-critical fire safety defects, would be significant, particularly when paragraph 5.6 goes on to state that the consequences for non-compliance with the legislation are severe because the regulations prevent a developer from completing other major developments. That is a very significant tool to ensure that critical fire safety issues are addressed and that those developers who behave irresponsibly can be held to account. I would again expect there to be agreement across the House on that. Labour Members have no doubt campaigned for such developers to be held to account, and that is in the SI: there is a clear lever with which developers who have not taken action on critical fire safety issues can be, in essence, stopped from selling their future developments. That is what the legislation is all about.
A third piece of evidence is the manifesto on which Labour Members stood. In the general election campaign, Labour said it wanted to “take decisive action” on this issue. What better opportunity for taking decisive action than introducing legislation to the House? Yet the Minister does not even seem to comply with paragraph 10.1— I have not seen any notes from officials to help her out either—which states that the Department should already be publishing data on progress. We are almost two years into their Administration and, as I pointed out, no less than the Housing Minister himself tabled parliamentary questions on this issue.
The Housing Minister has a burning constituency issue with a controversial developer in his own constituency that, in January of last year, was subjected to a fine of some £7.8 million by the Planning Inspectorate. Is it not odd that we cannot get any information on any firms that have been put on the prohibitions list in the last two years, including the one that was apparently connected to a “mutant development” in the Housing Minister’s own constituency?
Justin Madders
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Housing Minister would have to recuse himself of any involvement in a matter involving his own constituency.
Steve Barclay
Of course, but I am sure that he, as a constituency MP, would diligently lobby his colleagues in the appropriate way to take action. I would also think that the Housing team as a whole would share his view that where a developer in the constituency that he represents has behaved in a way that has led to a £7.8 million fine, that might be within scope of the decisive action talked about in the Labour manifesto.
What I find remarkable is that the Minister does not seem to know. She has come to the Committee today to present legislation, and when she answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, I did not hear her mention a single firm that was on the prohibitions list. I therefore followed up with a specific question, to try to help her out. I asked about the Comer Group because that is one of the most high profile ones; it was raised before the last election by her own colleague, and she does not even know about the Housing Minister’s own concern.
We are being told today that this is an opportunity to take action against developers who have failed to do the right thing on critical fire safety issues, yet two years in the Minister cannot update the House on any decisive action that has been taken. The Department is saying publicly that it publishes regular data and we are here debating the legislation today and colleagues are being asked to vote on it. Again, there is nothing in this legislation that I disagree with. Cancelling out a double negative and giving a bit of clarity in the language is all fine and well, but what a wasted opportunity!
Why is the Minister presenting legislation without knowing the basic facts, such as how many developers have been put on the prohibitions list? She has had time for her officials to give her a note. I hope that when she sums up the debate we will get the number of firms on the prohibitions list and specifically whether the Comer Group is on it. The officials have their laptops open. I am sure they can send an email to the Department—
The Chair
Order. It is not fair to go on about the officials; the right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister.
Samantha Dixon
I thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, for their constructive and important points today. I can reassure Members that there is considerable work going on in this area.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire has misunderstood; I will be generous. The purpose of the regulations when they were initially introduced was to encourage all eligible developers to sign up to the scheme. They did so, which is why none are on the prohibited list. I hope that clarifies for him why there is nothing on the prohibited list. The developers work with the Department. Indeed, last month the Secretary of State and I met developers, the Building Safety Regulator and freeholders to discuss the developer remediation contract. We hold developers to account for their remediation progress, including with a dedicated caseworker team, and we scrutinise detailed quarterly data returns. To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, a full impact assessment was published alongside the original regulations. The regulations in front of us today tidy up what were, to be charitable, quickly drawn-up regulations that need to be amended so that they work effectively and appropriately.
I thank the hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their remarks. The Government plan to bring forward a remediation Bill when parliamentary time allows. More details will come forward at that point.
In closing, the regulations make important technical amendments to the 2023 regulations. They remove drafting ambiguities, clarify how the prohibitions operate in practice, and make sure key exceptions, whether for emergency repairs, routine maintenance or home purchases, work as they were intended to, to protect residents and leaseholders. The amendments do not change the requirements on developers to remediate.
Question put and agreed to.
Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Housing
Road Safety of Horses and Riders
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Statutory Menstrual Leave
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Please let me thank Michelle, who is sitting in the Public Gallery with her daughter, for creating the petition that has brought us to the debate today. I am honoured to be leading on this issue. Some may ask why a man is leading a debate on women’s health. They may think that endometriosis and adenomyosis are somewhat awkward to speak about in public and that such women’s issues should be reserved for conversations behind closed doors, out of earshot of embarrassed male peers, but that is exactly why we are here today—because women’s health is not just a women’s issue. It is a workplace issue, an economic issue and, importantly, an equality issue.
Endometriosis and adenomyosis are conditions that cause chronic pain as a result of the excess growth of tissue similar to the lining of the womb in areas outside the womb. That results in a range of symptoms, from inflammation to severe pain, fatigue and in some cases infertility. These can be cyclical conditions, with some women feeling disabled for one week a month. Conversely, others experience such pain almost constantly. In the UK, 1.5 million women suffer from endometriosis, and 40% of them suffer additionally with adenomyosis. Both conditions have significant impacts on educational engagement and workplace participation, productivity and progression. Combined, they cost the UK economy more than £8 billion a year. That includes health costs and, of course, loss of work.
However, it is crucial to understand that the loss of time in the workplace has not just economic ramifications. Not being able to go to work can impact one’s self-esteem and individual identity. Twenty-three per cent of women have taken time off work because of period health issues, and one in six with endometriosis leaves the workplace entirely, because of their condition. Even following surgery, many women feel pressured to return to work before they have fully recovered. Despite all the impacts, only one in 10 women believes that her employer provides support for menstruation and menstrual health.
Even receiving a diagnosis of endometriosis in the first place is frustratingly difficult, with the average waiting time being nine years and four months. In half of cases, patients report their symptoms to the GP 10 times or more, and 52% of patients end up visiting A&E at least once.
My first awareness of endometriosis was through my wife, Leah, who lived with the condition from the age of 12 to her 30s. For Leah, obtaining a diagnosis was a long, exhausting and frustrating process. She was told numerous times to simply get on with it or to go and take a paracetamol. Like so many others, she found that her pain and struggle were constantly and continuously dismissed as heavy periods. But endometriosis meant that, as a young adult, Leah had to miss out on school. She lived 12 miles away and could not get home in time if she was having a heavy episode. For fear of embarrassment, she simply chose not to go to school, heavily impacting her education at the time.
Throughout her teens, later in her 20s and even after having two children, Leah suffered the debilitating impact of endometriosis. She would often be close to fainting with the pain, but suffered in silence. Eventually we found a GP who was prepared to do something about it, and Leah was referred to a specialist. Following several procedures, her issues with endometriosis subsided. However, that is not to say that it was straightforward: unfortunately, following a partial hysterectomy, Leah suffered a significant haemorrhage at home, and it was only due to emergency surgery at our local hospital that she survived. Even after diagnosis, there are risks with treatment. Endometriosis has to be recognised as a significant and complex condition. My wife was failed by a system that lacked, and still lacks, a full understanding of the symptoms of endometriosis, and by a culture that overlooks how menstrual health can dominate and affect daily life.
The Department for Work and Pensions “Keep Britain Working” initiative has been crucial in recognising the impact of health on people’s working lives. However, as many colleagues will agree, we have so much more to do. We must include menstrual health, including endometriosis and adenomyosis, in both existing and future agendas, reaffirming the importance of women’s health in the workplace. To do so, we must challenge the related stigma and reflect on policy.
To challenge the stigma, we must strive to understand that endometriosis and adenomyosis are systemic, chronic health conditions that can derail somebody’s life. The lack of awareness of that fact, combined with a taboo surrounding menstrual health, accentuates the suffering of patients, making them feel as though they have nowhere to turn and no shoulder to lean on. With other conditions that affect a similar number of women, such as type 2 diabetes, no such taboo or silence exists. There is a positive acceptance and understanding of the difficulties faced by those with type 2 diabetes—and rightly so. We must replicate that acceptance and understanding in our attitude towards menstrual health.
Following conversations with Endometriosis UK, I support the expansion of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme and the national workplace endometriosis and adenomyosis pledge, which allow businesses to commit to employer action plans that promote open dialogue, training and understanding of these health issues. Incorporating seemingly little things—such as toilet access, break rotations or even the size ranges of uniforms —into a national framework of practical workplace adjustments can greatly improve the workplace experience of menstrual health, including endometriosis and adenomyosis. As Dr Jasmine Hearn and her colleagues at Manchester Metropolitan University highlight, improving awareness and tackling stigma in this way are key to ensuring justice for women with menstrual health concerns. However, as stated earlier, only one in 10 women believe that their organisation provides support for menstruation and menstrual health conditions. We must increase that number dramatically, and the promotion of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme is a powerful means to do so.
However, a change in culture alone is not enough; weusb need concrete policy to ensure that workplace accommodation is legally binding. This is where statutory menstrual leave could play a vital role. The Employment Rights Act 2025 ensures that large employers must publish gender equality action plans—a great step in the right direction—but it stops short of directly mentioning reproductive or menstrual health. The Act has made significant progress in supporting menopausal health in the workplace, but we must now expand this to menstrual health more broadly, including endometriosis and adenomyosis. An option would be to give those diagnosed a legal entitlement like that in Portugal, where up to three days of leave per month is permitted. Here, a diagnosis would allow women the flexibility and legal right to have time off work when they are suffering most.
It is important, however, to recognise that endometriosis, adenomyosis and menstrual healthcare are vastly nuanced. A single catch-all policy to address the workplace experience could risk overlooking such complexity with menstrual and reproductive health. We must also recognise that getting a diagnosis in the first place is still a major issue with endometriosis and adenomyosis. Again, the average diagnosis takes nine years and four months, meaning that only 15% of those with endometriosis symptoms have the formal diagnosis that would allow them access to such statutory menstrual leave.
For statutory menstrual leave to work as the petition intends, we must match it with significant improvements in early intervention, diagnosis and GP training on symptoms. This debate marks an opportunity to help ensure that the impact of these conditions on women’s health is no longer ignored. There is an argument for statutory menstrual leave, and for it to sit alongside wider measures that foster awareness and an understanding mindset. We must also challenge the stigma around women’s health by breaking taboos and championing justice for those who, all too often, suffer in silence.
Michelle told me that the petition is not about her; it is about her daughter and all those who will have to battle endometriosis and adenomyosis in the future. By challenging the stigma and reflecting on policy, we can champion the employment rights of those with menstrual and reproductive health complications today and in the future, effecting transformative changes to many people’s lives. I thank everybody for attending this debate, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for speaking with such compassion and insight, and for sharing Leah’s journey—one I am afraid many will recognise. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, which is launching an inquiry into endometriosis in the workplace on 21 April, and I invite colleagues from across the House to attend the event that will be held. We want to hear directly from women and employers about their experiences, including what is or is not working, and about what has to change if we are to better support women to remain in the workplace.
As we have heard, Endometriosis UK operates an endo-friendly employer scheme with certification. Last November, my office signed up to that scheme, which offers guidance and support to run an endo-friendly workplace. I also wrote to my local councils and chamber of commerce to invite them to do the same. I ask all Members to consider signing up and leading by example in their own communities.
Too many women have had their pain dismissed as normal, struggled silently at work or had their careers derailed because a workplace simply was not designed with their health in mind. As a result, one in six women with endometriosis has ended up leaving the workplace—an entirely unacceptable and largely avoidable situation.
It was being elected to this place that made me persist in seeking support for my symptoms, which limited my ability to fully participate in my responsibilities as a parliamentarian—the fatigue and the menstrual flooding, and the constant worrying and planning about what I was wearing and where I would be at any given time. As it turned out, I have adenomyosis, which was discovered only at the ripe old age of 49, as I come to the end of my reproductive life. So I understand the stress, pain and worry that affect millions of women in this country today.
Menstrual leave has gathered support at just the right time, as many of the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 have just come into force. We recognise that the workplace needs to change and that women should not be disadvantaged due to health conditions. The women’s health strategy refresh in England and phase 2 of the Scottish women’s health plan present opportunities to correct the trend that has led to endometriosis and menstrual health being under-researched, undertreated and under-recognised, and diagnosis wait times increasing to a decade or more for some women. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that endometriosis waiting times will be the utmost priority in the women’s health strategy refresh.
Although endometriosis affects around one in 10 women, it does not affect everyone in the same way. Some need intermittent time off during flare-ups; others, especially when properly supported, can work consistently, but need flexibility, reasonable adjustments and job security if their symptoms worsen. Prior to this debate, I looked into other countries that have menstrual leave. What that means in practice varies considerably. Vietnam offers a half-hour paid break every day during menstruation; Spain gives up to five days of paid leave for severe menstrual pain, subject to a doctor’s approval; and Portugal allows workers suffering severe and disabling menstrual pain to take up to three consecutive days of paid leave, dependent on the employee providing a medical note confirming incapacitating pain due to endometriosis or adenomyosis.
Legislation that provides for menstrual health is not necessarily a silver bullet, particularly when it relies upon a diagnosis. That would be the opposite of progress. Women with endometriosis do not need a one-size-fits-all policy; they need flexibility, fairness and protection. Too many workplaces automatically trigger action once someone hits an arbitrary number of absences, which is deeply discriminatory. Absence management systems need to change to recognise the chronic and episodic nature of conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis, and the accompanying mental physical fatigue from living with persistent pain.
Critically, employees need endometriosis to be treated for what it is: a long-term, whole-body health condition, not a series of isolated sick days. Menstrual leave can be an essential part of the support package, but building stronger rights to flexible work, reasonable adjustments and protection from workplace penalisation is central to any solution. To improve outcomes for women with endometriosis, we need answers that recognise the reality of the condition and help women to stay in work, progress in work and be treated with dignity at work.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am pleased to take part in this debate and to stand with the 149 women in Sherwood Forest and the 109,000 people in total who signed this petition.
Painful periods are often dismissed as something that women should simply put up with—an inconvenience that is not that bad and happens only once a month—but for thousands of women across the UK, that could not be further from the truth. Every day, women live with chronic pain and exhaustion caused by conditions such as endometriosis. While the petition focuses on endometriosis and adenomyosis, it is important that we also include other, often overlooked conditions that cause severe menstrual symptoms, such as polycystic ovary syndrome. Around one in eight women in the UK have PCOS, and one in 10 have endometriosis. Some, like me, live with both.
Introducing menstrual leave in the UK would be life-changing for so many women. It would allow them to prioritise their health without fear of losing income or facing repercussions at work. Just as importantly, it would send a clear message to employers that women’s health must be taken seriously.
The reality is that women are still not equal in the workplace. They are expected to work through intense pain and fatigue, and remain just as productive, regardless of how unwell they are. Many women worry about the consequences of taking too much sick leave, including lost pay and being penalised or viewed negatively at work. By enshrining menstrual leave in law, we can ensure that employers are unable to penalise women for managing long-term health conditions. It would also create an opportunity to improve awareness and understanding of the real impact that conditions like endometriosis and PCOS have on people’s lives. While symptoms vary, and some women may experience few or none, others suffer severe, debilitating pain that affects their ability to work, study and live their daily lives. For example, PCOS can involve fatigue, pain, irregular cycles and significant mental health impacts, affecting the ability to work.
That was the reality for me: passing out at sixth-form college in the toilets on a regular basis, experiencing extreme pain to the point where I could not even stand up, suffering migraines, sickness and vomiting, and doing my GCSEs when I could barely see out of my eyes. PCOS and similar conditions are chronic and multi-system, meaning that they do not affect just one part of the body or happen for a short period; they are lifelong conditions that require ongoing management and support, yet they are rarely recognised in workplace support frameworks.
I am pleased that the Government have introduced the menopause action plan. I ask the Minister to go further and introduce a menstruation action plan so that workplaces can start to reflect better the lives of women and the range of conditions they face, and ensure an understanding of the effect of the pain and suffering. Portugal and Spain already have such policies; the UK should too.
Another crucial part of this debate is diagnosis. Menstrual leave alone will not fully support women if it can take years for them to receive an accurate diagnosis. I had to wait over 18 years for my diagnosis, all while trying to manage the symptoms by myself. GPs told me to take paracetamol and put a hot water bottle on my stomach, when I could not even stand up. A diagnosis cannot solve everything, but it unlocks access to the right treatments, and gives women the evidence they need to request reasonable adjustments in the workplace. It gives women an opportunity to do what is right for themselves. Until women’s pain is taken seriously—medically and professionally —true equality at work will remain out of reach for so many.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I declare an interest: I have adenomyosis. It took more than 30 years for it to be diagnosed. The average diagnosis time is nine years and four months. For ethnically diverse communities, it is over 11 years.
My story is not unusual. From the age of 14, I repeatedly went to the GP saying, “This isn’t normal.” That is like the 47% of sufferers who visited their GP more than 10 times before a diagnosis, while 70% visited more than five times. We all know what they were told: “You’re making a fuss about nothing”, “It’s normal”, and as we just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), “All you need is a hot water bottle and some painkillers.”
Like so many other young women—80% of them—I was put on the contraceptive pill before any further investigation, and well before I was sexually active. This continued for many years. I once convinced a doctor that the pain was so bad that I should have some kind of exploratory surgery, so they did exploratory surgery looking for endometriosis. They did not look for adenomyosis. After that, I really was told that I was making it up, because they could not find anything.
When I gave birth to my first child, I was in labour for 30 hours. A midwife at the other end of the phone kept saying to my husband, “If she’s able to nap, she’s clearly not having contractions.” I could nap during contractions because I had spent more than 30 years having to sleep with adenomyosis. I learned to have a very high pain tolerance. That baby was delivered in A&E because we got to the hospital so late. Even after being able to describe the pain of my periods being worse than the pain of contractions, not least because they were continuous and did not go away and come back like contractions, I was told that I was exaggerating and that it could not possibly be that bad. They told me that there was nothing they could do other than keep me on the contraceptive pill, which seemed to do nothing.
It was not until I got to the other end with my reproductive health, when I had to go for several scans for menopause ahead of getting treatment for perimenopause, that the scanner said to me, “Oh, you have adenomyosis. That must be really painful,” as an offhand comment. I was bowled over. I said, “What is that? I’ve never even heard of it.” I had heard of endometriosis, but I had no idea what adenomyosis was. She said, “Oh, it’s similar, but it’s growing in your muscle lining.” I could not believe it; I was shocked that from the beginning to the end of my reproductive years—all those years of pain—I never once got a proper diagnosis.
How did that impact my working career? I used to wish my period would start on a weekend, so that I would not have to miss work—I can see some nodding heads. I used to organise my work tasks around my expected period: I would do all the work that took concentration on days I knew would be good days, so that on the bad days I did not have to be productive. I missed about a day of work a month, which used to terrify me at the beginning of my career. I did not feel that I could talk to my bosses about it—I did not have the words to do so—and I had doubts from those doctors telling me that it was not as bad as I thought.
I also want to share April’s story. She is only 24 and she has been going through this for the past 10 years. Her periods were so painful that she vomited. It is like that for many of us: doctors would say, “Take a paracetamol,” and I would say, “That’s great, but I can’t keep it down. I will literally vomit it back up.” April had a Mirena intrauterine device fitted for her symptoms, but she wanted to get it removed. I was shocked by this story: she was told that the strings of her IUD had been cut too short to remove without surgery. When April asked why that was the case she was told:
“We cut the strings short for our younger patients, because we don’t want their boyfriends to find sex with them uncomfortable.”
April had to undergo surgery under general anaesthesia to remove her IUD. She says that, at every stage,
“A decision about my own body—my contraception, my ability to access the removal of my IUD—was shaped around the comfort of a hypothetical male partner.”
She was single at the time.
That is what we are all put through. At no point were any of us told that painful periods are not normal—I am not talking about discomfort; I am talking about pain—even though we know that to be the case. Each and every one of us should know that from the start. This relates to the fact that women’s health information is being shadow-banned online. Over the past year, 95% of women’s health educators were targeted for shadow-banning. That means that people who are trying to get this kind of health information out there are having their posts either blocked or downgraded because of their content. I do not mean to be rude, but that does not seem to happen to posts about erectile dysfunction.
Educators are told by big tech that it has been quietly restricting or hiding women’s health content that contains educational terms like “periods”, “menopause”, “vagina” and “endometriosis” under the guise of safety or because those terms are too sexualised. How are we supposed to create an environment in which not only we as women but our bosses, colleagues and partners, who might be male, all understand that painful periods are not normal, and that the pain is real?
We are seeing improvements in these areas, and I know that we are all looking forward to the women’s health strategy, which many of us have had long conversations about with the Ministers involved. We hope that it will bring about further real progress, but right now, I have a 15-year-old daughter who has all the same symptoms that I had, with all the same pain. I have told her all my tricks, including the use of irritable bowel syndrome medication to reduce some of the cramping—if people in the Public Gallery do not know about that one, it works really well—but our GP says that she is too young to start having such discussions. She is doing her mock GCSE exams this week. I wish her the best of luck, because she has studied really hard, but she is terrified that she will get her period this week and it will mess up those mock GCSEs.
I have given just a few examples; I know that women in the Public Gallery could give many more. We hear the same story over and over, and it all stems from this fallacy that periods are meant to be painful. Painful periods are not normal and we need to repeat that to every woman we know, including every female team member we know and every GP or consultant we know, to make real change happen.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
You will not be surprised to hear me say, Mr Mundell, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way in which he introduced this debate, and other hon. Members for the excellent speeches that followed.
I recently met a constituent who lives in Chesser and has adenomyosis. During our meeting, she told me about the debilitating impact of the condition on her personal life and her work life, and it was a real insight for me. On some days, her pain is so severe that she struggles to walk or move around her home, even to reach the toilet. She also reminded me just how common endometriosis and adenomyosis are: given that around 10% of menstruators suffer from one of the two conditions, there could be thousands of people in Edinburgh South West who currently suffer from the regular and excruciating pain that they cause.
Although my constituent now has an employer who understands and accommodates her health needs and allows her to work from home or take leave for her condition, that has not always been the case. She recounted the degrading experience of having to explain her health issues in detail to a former employer, just for taking time off. Despite that, she was still given a written warning. It is such inconsistency among employers that motivated her to sign the petition and to meet me to ask, very politely, that I attend this debate on her behalf.
As we have already heard, up to one in six women with endometriosis have to leave the workplace due to their condition. For some women, that will be because they really cannot work due to the pain they suffer. Sadly, for other women, who can work and want to work, it may come down to a lack of accommodating workplaces. We have to be honest about that situation and say that it is discrimination.
I recognise the Government’s position that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 should ensure the flexibility that is required for women affected by these conditions to take leave or for adjustments to be made for them. However, laws are only useful if they are respected and enforced. None the less, I hope that the reforms introduced in the Employment Rights Act 2025, including statutory sick pay, will ensure that further accommodations can be made.
I hope that the Minister will give some guarantee today that the Government will look at menstrual leave schemes abroad to inform the evidence-based best practice that we need in the UK. I also hope that the Government will do what they can to support businesses or organisations that decide to introduce such practice in the interim, simply because it is the right thing to do. I must be honest and say that I had not heard of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme before, so it would also be interesting to hear what the Government are doing to support that scheme.
The data from the schemes implemented abroad show that they are unlikely to be abused. Although the petition we are discussing today relates to the scheme in Portugal, the introduction of a similar menstrual leave policy in Spain has not led to an avalanche of sick days being taken as a result. Although I know there have been some concerns about how easy it is to access that scheme, the Spanish allowance has been used just 1,550 times. It will hardly have a significant impact on the Spanish economy, but it will be a huge benefit to the women who are able to access it.
Equally, such schemes can help employees avoid having repeatedly to justify in detail absences that they require. With the Portuguese system of requiring only one initial confirmation of diagnosis, employees will likely be spared uncomfortable and degrading conversations with superiors and work colleagues about this medical condition.
I hope the Government will look to the positive impact of those schemes abroad and build up best practice for the UK. I want to make one last point: when I spoke about this debate on my Facebook page, many women who responded said that they were keener for GPs to be better informed about the condition, and for diagnosis to happen much quicker. I could not believe it took just over nine months for a diagnosis to take place—
Dr Arthur
Nine years—apologies. It took just over nine years for a diagnosis to take place, given the pain we have heard about. We have heard in this debate about the real human impact that delay causes. That must be impacting our economy too, so I hope the Government will commit to studying the effect of these conditions on the economy, and perhaps that will justify action in this domain.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his opening remarks, and for his compassion and solidarity. He is absolutely right that every man should have a say in these issues and challenge them. As well as the fact that nearly half the global population will menstruate at some point in their lifetime, and on any given day 850 million people across the world are menstruating, we are all here because a woman somewhere had a menstrual cycle, so it is a concern for absolutely everybody.
For something so universal, menstruation remains shrouded in coded language, embarrassment and unnecessary shame. We call it “the time of month”, “the painters are in”, “my cousin has come to stay”—anything but what it actually is. We pass around tampons and pads as if they are some sort of contraband that no one should see. That evasion is not accidental: it is the product of centuries of conditioning that told women their bodies were problems to be managed in silence and shame.
Listening to my fellow hon. Friends speaking about their own experience, all I keep thinking is that, if young women had been flagged when they had painful periods, things would have been different for a lot of the conditions we are talking about, certainly in terms of the length of time to diagnosis. I am really pleased to contribute to this debate and support statutory menstrual leave, not as a radical policy but as a practical, compassionate and long-overdue step towards a fairer and healthier working society.
We already see where progress has been made and where things have been championed in this House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) on the ten-minute rule Bill she introduced recently and her consistent campaigning for improved endometriosis care. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) on her work as the chair of the APPG on endometriosis. All that work matters and it is making a difference.
Scotland became the first country in the world to legislate for free menstrual products, and across the UK we rightly abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021, finally ending the so-called tampon tax. Steps like those matter, but they are not the end of the journey—not by a long way. Here is the truth: we have made it cheaper to menstruate, but we have not made it safe to admit that someone is struggling because of it.
Menstrual stigma continues to socially condition people to conceal their pain, push through it and stay silent at work. The cost of that silence is not abstract; for those living with endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea, adenomyosis or premenstrual dysphoric disorder, that silence means working through debilitating pain or losing earnings when they cannot, and in some cases losing jobs altogether. Those are real conditions. They are painful and often severe, and they exist within a system where female reproductive health has been chronically under-researched, underfunded and far too often dismissed.
Kirsteen Sullivan
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does she agree that the impact on women’s mental health is rarely spoken about? Women feel ignored and dismissed, but they are living in constant pain and the anticipation of it, which just wears them down. The mental health point is rarely acknowledged but must be addressed.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say that as someone who lives with endometriosis and constantly experiences that pain, thinking about what I can and cannot do, and what I will be able to manage this week or that week. I know what it is to sit in a meeting, stand through our many votes and carry on a role that demands my full presence when my body is screaming otherwise. I know from listening to other Members and so many different women speaking about it that I am far from alone.
It is not a competition of who receives more health funding, but we have to say that men have won consistently. When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) was speaking, I looked up some figures for the amount of investment into things such as Viagra. Everyone should look at them when they can; they are shocking in comparison with what is spent on certain things in men’s and women’s health. Let us be honest about what that under-investment has cost us: endometriosis alone affects around 1.5 million people in the UK, taking an average of nearly nine years to diagnose, as we have heard. That is not a gap in the system, but a failure of the system; it is a failure rooted in a long-standing tendency to deprioritise women’s pain.
Statutory menstrual leave would allow someone to take time off when they were genuinely unable to work due to menstruation, without fear of judgment, without risking their job security and without having to lie about why they are absent. Crucially, it would also begin to normalise the conversation and to challenge the stigma rather than reinforce it, because the answer to workplace discrimination is never to remain invisible.
As we have heard, menstrual leave policies already exist across the globe: in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Indonesia, Zambia, Mexico and, most recently, Portugal. They are not fringe experiments, but functioning workplace policies in countries with vastly different cultures and economies. The evidence that this is workable is already there. Here at home, our Employment Rights Act has introduced major reforms, including a day one right to sick pay. Menstrual leave would sit naturally alongside those changes if we were to implement it; it is consistent with the direction of travel and is the next logical step.
The policy also offers vital protection for those who are too often overlooked, including transgender men and non-binary and gender-diverse people who menstruate. For many, disclosure of menstrual status can expose them to discrimination or worse. A clear statutory framework would provide safety, privacy and the reassurance that their needs were seen and protected by law.
There are those who argue that menstrual leave would undermine women in the workplace, and that employers would discriminate against people who menstruate when hiring. I take that concern seriously, but that argument has been made against every single piece of workplace equality legislation in history: it was made against maternity leave, it was made against equal pay, and it was made against flexible working. In every case, the answer was not to abandon the protection, but to make the legal framework strong enough to prevent the discrimination. That is what we have to do here too.
The ultimate goal is job security, wellbeing and genuine equality. Menstrual leave alone will not get us all the way there, but it is a serious, evidence-backed and compassionate step in the right direction. I urge this House to take it.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate and I congratulate the lead petitioner on securing more than 109,000 signatures on their petition. That number should stick in all of our minds, because it sends a clear signal that this issue has been ignored for far too long and that the people affected by it are exhausted by the neglect they are feeling.
One of the women affected, a constituent of mine, wrote to me ahead of this debate. She talked about how endometriosis has shaped her life through pain, exhaustion and suffering for far too long. From a young age, she knew that her symptoms were not normal, enduring irregular cycles, severe clotting, chronic pain and debilitating symptoms that were too often dismissed or ignored. She was told that she may never have children, and although she was fortunate enough to have two, she told me that her condition worsened, bringing miscarriages, severe blood loss, iron deficiency, IBS and relentless pain.
My constituent said that, time and again, she would visit the GP, hospitals and specialists, and she was often told—as we have heard many times today—to simply manage the pain. Women with endometriosis are expected to suffer in silence, while their health, careers, families and quality of life deteriorate around them. She told me that she was not asking for miracles; she was asking to be heard, to be taken seriously and to receive the care that she deserves.
My constituent’s testimony is not exceptional; it is representative, and it is backed up with data. Last year, Endometriosis UK found that the average wait time for a diagnosis has now reached nine years and four months. That has gone up significantly in the last six years. During those nine years, the condition progresses, fertility is affected, and women are forced to manage debilitating pain in workplaces, education and at home. Shockingly, 83% of respondents to Endometriosis UK’s survey were told by a healthcare practitioner prior to their diagnosis that they were making a fuss. On top of that, women wait an average three and a half years after first noticing symptoms before seeking medical help at all, largely because severe period pain has been thoroughly normalised in our society. That women wait such a long time before they get their diagnosis is simply not acceptable. We also need to think about women from ethnically diverse communities, whose average time to diagnosis is even longer, at 11 years. The House should find that inequality unacceptable.
This is not just a health crisis. Endometriosis UK estimates that the economic loss to the UK from absenteeism due to severe period pain, heavy periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is about £11 billion a year. The case for investment in women’s health and women’s support is not just moral; it is economic.
I wanted to touch on a point that Members have made multiple times about the arbitrary hit points for absence in absence management systems. When I was working in the private sector, we had a very similar system: if someone hit three absences within a defined period of time, they would go through an investigation and a disciplinary meeting—just like that. Although there may be mitigations for long-term conditions, the stress of the idea of going through an investigatory meeting because of their long-term condition adds to the cycle of women not wanting to go to their doctor or talk to professionals about what they are experiencing. They have been told for so long to just get on with it and manage the pain, and the absence management system in this sector does not help at all.
The Government’s response to the petition acknowledges the hardship that women are facing, but the action they talk about falls short. Ministers point to the Equality Act, reasonable adjustments and the Employment Rights Act, specifically on flexible working. I want to be clear that the Liberal Democrats support the right to day one flexible working, and we are glad to see these changes coming into force, we think, in April next year. Flexible working genuinely helps people to manage conditions such as endometriosis, and employers should be actively engaged in using it, but it relies on individual employers, and it cannot be a substitute for proper medical care or compensate for decades of misdiagnosis.
Before women can be properly supported in the workplace, they need to be diagnosed, and before they can be diagnosed, healthcare professionals need training. Time and resources need to go into being able to recognise and act on the symptoms. When over half of women with endometriosis are forced to attend A&E before receiving a diagnosis, we know that there is a failure in primary care, and that is adding to the pressure on our hospitals.
We need to invest in GPs and other healthcare professionals to ensure that anyone with long-term conditions such as endometriosis has access to named GPs who know their history and can provide continued support. We also need to make sure that people are actually able to receive a GP appointment and be seen when they need it; far too often, they are unable to do so.
I want the Government to commit to a new target to bring down substantially the average endometriosis diagnosis time, working towards the one year or less by 2030 target that Endometriosis UK is calling for. I also want them to put in place a proper awareness campaign and ensure that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are fully implemented across the primary care sector, with standardised referral pathways in place. The Government must also take seriously the role of mental health support, which, after years of pain and dismissal, many women will require. Such mental health support is currently severely lacking.
The petitioners and individuals who signed the petition —100,000 across the country and the many more they represent—are not asking for the impossible. They are asking to be heard, taken seriously and to receive the care that they need. I urge the Minister to match that urgency with her response today.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone for their powerful and often personal contributions today. First, I want to recognise Michelle Dewar, the tenacious campaigner behind today’s petition for menstrual relief. She is a great champion for women suffering with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and I congratulate her on securing over 100,000 signatures—not an easy task, but it showcases the strength of feeling from many on this important topic.
Endometriosis is a condition where endometrial tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. One in 10 women of reproductive age suffer with it, making it the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK. Common symptoms include chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding, making normal activities difficult. It predominantly affects women during their reproductive years. Adenomyosis, an often overlooked condition, has similar symptoms, but is where the lining of the womb starts growing into the muscle in the wall of the womb. It is commonly diagnosed in women over the age of 30, but can also affect younger women, as we heard today. Similar to endometriosis, it affects one in 10 women, with nearly 70% of women waiting over five years to get a diagnosis.
Michelle’s own journey with endometriosis began 24 years ago, causing her to miss school every month from the age of 14. Shockingly, it was not until she was 23, nine years later, that she received a diagnosis. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, her story is far from uncommon, with many women not receiving a timely diagnosis. It takes on average eight years and 10 months from the first GP visit to get a diagnosis.
Women’s symptoms are often dismissed and normalised, leaving them to struggle on with their pain, without treatment, without understanding and without support. The lack of understanding and knowledge of what constitutes a normal period or menstrual cycle also delays women seeking help and can leave family and friends uncertain how to provide support. No woman or girl knows what a normal level of period pain is without input from others, and lack of awareness leads to her not being well equipped to advocate strongly for herself with medical practitioners. We also need to recognise that there is still embarrassment and stigma around talking about periods, which can add to the challenge of getting adequate medical care when something is not right.
Recognising the challenges women face in their engagement with the healthcare system, in 2022 the then Conservative Government published the women’s health strategy for England, a 10-year programme committed to improving women’s health. The strategy seeks to address disparities in women’s healthcare and the under-representation of women in medical research. One of the strategy’s eight priority areas is menstrual health and gynaecological conditions, including greater awareness, earlier diagnosis and better treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis.
As we have heard many times today, all aspects of the lives of women struggling with those conditions and enduring awful pain every month are impacted. It affects their relationships, their overall wellbeing and also their careers, and such debilitating conditions impact on earnings in the long term. Office for National Statistics data published last year shows a drop in monthly earnings among women aged 25 to 54 diagnosed with endometriosis from one to five years after diagnosis, compared with the two-year period before being diagnosed with the condition. Average pay decreased each year post diagnosis, culminating in a £130 monthly reduction in the four to five years post-diagnosis period. Although it is likely that different factors contribute to this change, it is none the less worrying that there is such a statistically significant drop in earnings post diagnosis.
Prompt diagnosis of these conditions is vital and the roll-out of community diagnostic centres will help immensely. Many of my own constituents stand to benefit from the recently opened community diagnostic centre in the Belfry in Redhill, which will deliver much needed extra capacity to perform diagnostic scans. That is exactly the kind of practical measure that can help women to get answers more quickly when their symptoms and pain suggest that something is wrong.
When a woman is suffering symptoms that mean that she is unable to work, the current option available to her is to take sick leave. That option is available to any employee with any condition or illness that leaves them unable to work. It is a broad, non-discriminatory entitlement available across almost all conditions. From 6 April this year, following recent changes by this Labour Government, when a person is unable to work due to ill health, they are entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. It is also relevant to note that statutory sick pay is now available to all eligible employees, regardless of their earnings.
The current approach to statutory sick pay therefore allows any woman who requires two to three days off every month due to endometriosis or adenomyosis to take the time she needs with sick pay. For that reason, the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for. Statutory sick pay is the better mechanism to use, because it does not discriminate or restrict provision to highly specific conditions. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are just a few examples of conditions that are equally debilitating and involve regular flare-ups—so it is entirely right that they are covered too.
Dr Arthur
The hon. Lady has done a great job of outlining the changes to workers’ rights in terms of sick pay. Can she confirm that her party voted against those measures? She has explained the benefit to women with these conditions, but the hon, Lady’s party absolutely opposed those measures.
Rebecca Paul
That is absolutely right. I am explaining the current system and why we do not need an additional level of menstrual leave. What the hon Gentleman said is correct and yes, we opposed those changes.
The approach taken in Portugal has been mentioned a number of times during this debate and in the petition itself, so it is important that I address the situation. Portugal introduced a menstrual leave policy last year, which gives the right to up to three days of paid leave per month for women diagnosed with endometriosis or adenomyosis and who suffer from severe and disabling pain. However, it is important to note key differences between the Portuguese system and ours which explain the difference in approach.
First, in Portugal, the first three days of ordinary sickness absence are generally unpaid, with sickness benefit usually only starting from day four. As I have just explained, in the UK statutory sick pay now begins from the first day of illness. Portugal has created a diagnosis-specific exception within a less generous baseline sickness system. The implementation of the same policy in the UK would therefore not deliver the same kind of incremental benefit because our general sick pay framework already covers short absences from day one and does not require a sick note for only three days’ absence.
It is also important to note that the protected characteristic of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010 may cover some women suffering from severe endometriosis or adenomyosis, depending on the effect that the condition has on their day-to-day activities. Where that is the case, they are protected from discrimination and their employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments can include changes such as phased returns to work, part-time working or flexible hours to support women to continue working when they are able to despite their condition.
The Conservative position is that a specific menstrual leave is not required. We are comfortable that existing sick leave provisions and discrimination protections already adequately protect women suffering with these conditions and ensure that they can take the time off they require every month. However, that does not mean that we do not think action is needed. We urge the Government to do all that they can to raise awareness of how severe these conditions can be and ensure that the NHS provides early diagnosis and treatment. We need to end the situation where women spend years in agony with no answers and support, and where employers are ignorant of how debilitating these conditions can be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening today’s debate and for bravely sharing his wife Leah’s experience of living with endometriosis. I also thank Michelle, who joins us in the Gallery, for creating the petition, sharing her story and experiences and bringing her daughter and so many other people here today to watch this debate. Finally, I thank my colleagues here who have reflected deeply on this matter, sharing their personal experiences and the experiences of their constituents and the many campaigners they have met across the country. The drive of all Members here today, and outside this Hall, makes it clear why the issue is so important for women and girls across the country and in our workplaces; clearly, we all know somebody impacted and living with various conditions that have led to a different experience at work. We want to see change and make sure that they can thrive in the workplace. That is why this debate is welcome and important.
I want to start by recognising the enormous, admirable strength of so many woman and girls living with endometriosis, adenomyosis and other menstrual conditions today, as well as the thousands of women who have come before us outside of this room. They have lived with the conditions for so long; they have not been diagnosed for many years, and it is harrowing to hear their reflections and stories from many colleagues today. I completely understand and share the determination to turn things around. I will touch on various actions that the Government have taken in the Department for Business and Trade—looking at specific workplace policies and our work with employers—and, of course, the strategic work that my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care are prioritising.
Recently, with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, I was honoured to meet with Endometriosis UK to hear the lived experiences of women and their campaigns, including with Jasmina, the director of “Dear Doctor”. For those who have not watched it, it is an incredibly powerful film that describes living with the conditions and having to navigate working through the debilitating, but invisible, pain. It was incredibly moving to watch, and I thank them for it and for their time.
Of course, the conditions did not begin this year or this century. We are listening and taking action so that we can support women and girls across the country who live with those conditions. As Members, our constituents and the petition signatories know, they can be debilitating for patients. We have heard today about the pain, fatigue and psychological impacts, which are real, significant, and often have far-reaching consequences for women’s welfare and ability to fully participate in the workplace and education. It is unacceptable that health-related issues are the leading cause of women being excluded in the workplace. Over the past six years, the number of women who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness has risen by 425,000, reaching 1.48 million—close to a record high.
It is right that the Government are taking action on this issue from all sides, with our landmark Employment Rights Act making statutory sick pay more accessible and introducing equality action plans; access to work reforms in the Department for Work and Pensions through the “Keep Britain Working” programme; and our record investment in our NHS, which has seen gynaecology waiting lists fall by almost 20,000 and made transformative endometriosis medication available.
I will turn to the points that colleagues have made in this debate, and I thank them for raising them. We remain fully committed to learning from others and continue to look carefully at international best practice, which lots of colleagues have touched on today. That includes Portugal’s approach and other international examples that offer valuable insights into how to best support employees experiencing difficulties with menstrual health conditions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) for mentioning the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme. We expect employers to treat staff fairly and accommodate reasonable requests for employees suffering from menstrual health conditions. Many employers, as has been mentioned, choose to provide that voluntary support to staff, and the Government continue to encourage best practice. I thank colleagues for raising the scheme with me; two Departments—the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport—have already signed up, and I will take this away for the Department for Business and Trade to consider. I thank colleagues for raising that scheme.
Turning to statutory sick pay, one of the key issues raised in the debate is ensuring that women and girls experiencing debilitating symptoms from menstrual conditions are supported and not financially punished for a condition beyond their control. Our Government’s landmark Employment Rights Act delivers that, extending statutory sick pay to employees on day one—their first day of sickness—regardless of how much they earn. No more waiting a few days and no more not being entitled to statutory sick pay if they earn a certain amount.
While it is regretful that the Opposition voted against the Employment Rights Act at every stage in Parliament, I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), welcomed our statutory sick pay introductions this month. Those will change the lives of so many people across this country—as she and colleagues in this Chamber have pointed out—because they mean that, for the first time, those with fluctuating conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis are eligible for statutory sick pay from the first day that their sickness prevents them from working. Before the 2025 Act, they were excluded from statutory sick pay unless absence lasted for four days. That was a draconian system that harmed the least well off, ignored the lived experience of thousands of women, and desperately needed reform. It is absolutely right that we have dragged that system into the 21st century.
The Act also ensured that the UK leads the way in supporting employees to work flexibly. Flexible and hybrid working arrangements are vital in ensuring that employees who require reasonable adjustments, such as those with health conditions, are supported at work and are able to contribute to our workforce. That is particularly valuable for those with fluctuating or unpredictable conditions, including endometriosis and other menstrual health conditions, making it easier to manage symptoms and attend medical appointments, and reducing sickness absences.
The Act improves employees’ ability to work flexibly by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests, provided they are reasonable. Where they cannot accept those requests, employers will be required to discuss the challenges in accommodating them with employees and to consider alternative options, and, if they cannot agree an arrangement, to explain their reasoning. A public consultation on these reforms is currently under way until 30 April, and I encourage members of the public and advocacy organisations to please make submissions and ensure that their views are taken into account.
Alongside the right to request flexible working, protections continue to be available under the Equality Act, where symptoms have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. Conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis and premenstrual disorders can meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act. Employers absolutely have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as flexible hours, modified duties, part-time arrangements or phased returns. Those reasonable adjustments are well established, enforceable and designed to prevent discrimination and disadvantage.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Menstrual health conditions, including endometriosis, result in an estimated cost of £11 billion a year to the UK economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that having more supportive workplaces—workplaces without stigma, where there is an understanding of the chronic nature of some of those conditions—will have a positive effect not only for the women living with those conditions but overall, for our economy?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for her powerful speech during this debate. She is a tireless campaigner on this; I really look forward to working with her and the APPG on lots of these issues, and particularly on that stigma. She raises an excellent point about the role of employers in ensuring that there are supportive workplaces that can talk about health conditions that women experience, to make sure that they thrive at work. She mentioned the cost to our wider economy, and I thank her for doing that; it really recognises the significance of this issue and why we need to absolutely support those women across workplaces, and to work with employers to do that.
Turning to equality action plans, we are also working with employers to help women to thrive at work, and on how they can support women’s health much more proactively. Ahead of International Women’s Day, we were pleased to launch voluntary action plans to help those large employers address their gender pay gaps and improve support for employees experiencing menopause. As part of that announcement, we published a list of evidence-informed actions that employers can take—ones that are proven to work—and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that throughout her contribution.
Within the action plan, we are asking employers to commit to a minimum of two actions: one to address their gender pay gaps and one focused on supporting employees experiencing menopause, including those in both the perimenopausal and postmenopausal stages. Many of the recommended actions are also likely to benefit employees managing other menstrual health-related conditions, such as endometriosis, fibroids and polycystic ovary syndrome, which can significantly affect wellbeing and contribute to workplace disadvantage. It is a real opportunity for Government and business to work together to drive forward that meaningful change to improve workplace equality, and a huge step forward in supporting women’s health in the workplace.
We are also taking further action to address the barriers that menstrual health can raise in the workplace through Mariella Frostrup’s recent appointment as the Government’s women’s employment ambassador, building on her significant achievements in the past 18 months as the menopause employment ambassador. In this expanded role, she will champion women’s health across the life course, working with employers nationwide to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health conditions and highlight the vital economic contribution that women make.
Prior to my appointment as a Minister, I worked with the founder of Endometriosis UK’s Calderdale and Kirklees branch, a formidable woman named Natalie Greenwood, to connect her organisation with trade union members locally and employers and officials across the UK, to ensure that workplace policies are inclusive of women with menstrual conditions. I encourage all hon. Friends and petition signatories to take action in their constituencies so that we can all, together, work with our employers to support women in the workplace. With the right workplace support, we can unleash the full talent, creativity and potential for women across the country. That is good for women, business, our economy and our country.
Following Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review, we are taking broader action through the keep women working programme, which hon. Members have mentioned today, to help more women to stay in work. In response to that review, the Government have launched the vanguard phase, working with employers of different sectors, sizes and regions all across the country to test the practical ways of improving workplace health support. That vanguard phase will consider a range of insights through different lenses, including women’s health. We are also establishing a new workplace health intelligence unit to build that evidence base and support benchmarking. That sits alongside our £1 billion a year pathway to work programme.
Throughout this debate, colleagues have rightly touched on the problems with diagnosis and asked for an update on the women’s health strategy, which I will turn to, but I can reassure everyone across the House that their powerful contributions and the points they raised for colleagues across Government will be raised with my health colleagues. This is not an area that just sits in my Department and with employers; we are committed to it across Government.
I have heard personal stories, including from colleagues here today about women outside this room who have spent too many years seeking answers, being misdiagnosed, having symptoms minimised or being passed from service to service. The experiences highlighted in Endometriosis UK’s recent report underlines why that early-year diagnosis and consistent, compassionate care must be central to our approach. From our introduction of Jess’s rule, requiring GPs to reconsider diagnosis where symptoms persist, to the roll-out of Martha’s rule, which colleagues will be aware of, we want to ensure that women’s concerns are not dismissed.
The shadow Minister mentioned the impact that community diagnostic services can have, which is why we are expanding access to diagnostic services and rolling them out country wide for women. Last month, there were 106 centres offering out-of-hours appointments for women to get those vital tests around work and caring responsibilities, and I really welcome the work of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care.
We are also modernising how specialist care is delivered. In September, we announced our new online hospital, NHS Online, which will be unconstrained by geographical boundaries, better aligning clinical capacity with patient demand. Earlier this year, we confirmed that menstrual problems, often a sign of conditions such as endometriosis, will be the among the first nine conditions available for referral from 2027. Those details are being worked out ahead of next year’s launch.
However, we completely understand that better care also depends on better understanding and improving public and healthcare profession awareness of menstrual health conditions, to reduce stigma and ensure that symptoms are recognised rather than normalised or dismissed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) made such a powerful point around how period pains are considered to simply be painful and women and girls across the country should expect that; improving awareness is key to dealing with that. The General Medical Council has strengthened women’s health representation in training, and since last year has required UK medical graduates to pass that medical licensing assessment, to encourage better understanding of women’s health problems. That assessment includes topics on women’s health and endometriosis.
Before I conclude, I must touch on the women’s health strategy, which is really welcome. We have made strong progress turning the commitments in the last Government’s women’s health strategy into tangible action. Our renewed strategy will set out how this Government will take further steps to improve women’s health as we deliver the 10-year health plan. It will also address the gaps in the 2022 strategy, and go further to create a system that listens to women, tackles health inequalities and makes progress on conditions such as endometriosis. Renewing that strategy will help identify and remove enduring barriers to high-quality care, such as those extremely long wait lists for diagnosis, and ensure that professionals listen and respond to women’s needs. I am sure colleagues will be—and already are—engaging with my colleagues in the Health Department on that.
To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for leading the debate, the hon. Members in the Chamber for their powerful contributions and Michelle for her brave action that made this deeply important debate happen. I assure Members and petition signatories that I recognise the significant impact of menstrual health conditions, and I will consider all the points raised today as I continue to engage with stakeholders, with the APPG and with excellent Members across the House who are formidable in running their campaigns and raising this issue at every single opportunity—I thank them for that. We must ensure that lived experience continues to shape policy.
Paul Davies
Again, I thank Michelle. She has been referred to a number of times; without her, the debate would not be happening. I thank her for driving the petition; it has facilitated an excellent debate. It has certainly been humbling to listen to hon. Members talk about their lived experiences. I was fortunate that Leah allowed me to tell her story, and it is her story. Many Members said quite difficult things, and it very clearly demonstrates the need for change. There is no question whatsoever: the status quo is not acceptable. It is not just something that is nice to have; it is absolutely key—it is essential—to ensure that we improve women’s lives—and young girls’ lives as well, because they are going through this. This is not just about somebody in their 20s, 30s or 40s: it impacts them, obviously, but this is about some of our young people as well.
This is also very much about equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) referred to the difference in men’s health research—Viagra was a good example. That is not to diminish the needs around that but, when you compare that with the work in this area, it is about equality of treatment in our healthcare systems, in the views about what we should be doing and in the workplace. We have covered that in quite great depth.
It amazes me that the taboo and stigma around menstrual health still exists; I find that beyond my comprehension. We have two daughters, and that was never the case in our house whatsoever. In fact, I was given the orders to go and get the tampons and the various products—I would be ringing from the supermarket and asking, “Which ones do you need now? Is it the blue or the black box?” We need to be having those open discussions. Men need to start talking openly about this. This is not some dirty secret; this is normal and natural, and we should celebrate it because, as hon. Members have said, none of us would be here otherwise, would we?
Diagnosis is crucial, which has been raised time and again. That is the case with so many issues, but with this one it is even more stark. I have spoken, like many Members, about cancer diagnosis; this far outstrips that issue. An average wait of nine years and four months is absolutely incredible and unacceptable. We have to change that.
Research into treatment needs to take place. Too many easy decisions are being made, saying it is about hysterectomies and so on. From what I understand, I do not believe that enough research has been taken around treatment. Sometimes, procedures that impact a woman’s life very intensely are followed when they may not be needed.
I thank Michelle again—we will have to keep thanking her, over and over. I hope that, from her perspective, this debate has helped expose some of the issues. I know the debate will continue and, as the Minister says, the messages will go to the Government. I will finish with a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central that is so powerful: periods are not painful; it is not normal. We need to put that up in blazing lights.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave.
Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. The petition creator, Gemma Chappell, is the great-aunt of Maya Chappell, who was just two years old when she was tragically killed in September 2022 in County Durham. Maya was killed while in the care of her mother’s partner of nine weeks, Michael Daymond, who was subsequently convicted of Maya’s murder, while Maya’s mum was convicted of child cruelty and allowing her death. We are here today because of the extraordinary campaigning efforts of Gemma, her sister Rachael and other members of the family who refused to let what happened to Maya be forgotten.
Across the north-east of England, Maya’s smiling, innocent face has continued to be prominent, posing a devastating but simple question: will we as a society do everything possible to prevent a tragic death such as Maya’s from happening again? As a result, and aided by campaign support from The Northern Echo newspaper, more than 110,000 people have signed the petition asking that a new, proactive information-sharing safeguarding framework be put in place to protect at-risk children.
I would like to place on record my condolences to Maya’s family, as well as my admiration for how they are working on this issue through their grief. By telling Maya’s story in the media and in their campaign, they are encouraging others who have concerns about abuse to come forward and raise issues for investigation.
However, awareness is not the family’s sole aim. Gemma says it is time to move from expressions of sympathy to action. To spur that action, Maya’s family told me in our conversation in advance of today that they want every MP here to have a vivid idea of who Maya was. She was a loving, happy, adventurous child who enjoyed nothing more than running around the park and who loved Peppa Pig. Rachel calls her “the smiliest girl”. Maya had a notably sweet tooth, and her family remember her cheeky look as she ate two slices of cake at another child’s holy communion—and then went back for more. Maya was learning how to talk, and she had only just started speaking before she died. Her favourite words were “park”, “Peppa” and “daddy”.
As a parent, it is hard for me to comprehend the pain of losing a child, not least in such awful circumstances. Maya’s dad, James, was an important and loved part of her life. He raised concerns after seeing marks on her body, but those queries were dismissed by Maya’s mum. He was so concerned that he contacted police to ask about Daymond’s background, but Maya’s mum falsely claimed that she was not seeing him any longer, and that was accepted without corroboration.
Gemma is clear that we must not shy away from the awful realities of this case and what Maya suffered—the type of horrors suffered by the around 60 children a year who are killed by abuse or neglect. Maya was abused over a period of time; this was not a one-off event. She was abused for weeks. She was hurt. She lived in fear. Pathologists found a catalogue of injuries. In the end, Maya died as a result of being deliberately shaken and having a head injury inflicted.
The children such as Maya who are killed every year are not statistics: they are wonderful children, full of life and with their lives ahead of them. They are loved by many, but without a voice. Maya was too young to be able to alert anyone to the horror she was experiencing. It is for us in this House to be a voice for children such as Maya and to advocate for all possible steps we can take to prevent such deaths in the future.
I now come to the four specific asks in the petition, which together are being termed Maya’s law. The first ask is to
“Introduce a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme”
that would operate similarly to Clare’s law, or the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and Sarah’s law, or the child sex offender disclosure scheme, but that would be
“focused on the broader risk history of caregivers.”
The second ask is to
“Require statutory services (police, social care, health) to disclose relevant past”
information
“to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified.”
The third ask is to
“Establish multi-agency response protocols, particularly where child contact, custody, or unsupervised access is being considered.”
The fourth ask is to
“Empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family court safeguarding interventions where known risks exist, even if not currently under active investigation.”
Thanks to the work of Gemma’s MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), these matters—particularly the introduction of a child risk disclosure scheme—were subject to debate in this Chamber six months ago and received a response from the Children and Families Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from again today. That debate, and the Government’s response to the petition, highlighted that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will take key steps to strengthen safeguarding, including introducing a new information-sharing duty between agencies, which will end misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. In the six months since the last debate, the Bill has continued its passage through Parliament, and it should hopefully finally become law in the next few weeks.
The petitioner welcomes the action taken in the Bill, but they want to see a clear timeline for implementation and they emphasise that any new duties can be implemented only with improved professional training and practice. The petition’s key ask, though, remains outstanding and is not included in the Bill: strengthening the right of parents and close family members to request and to be proactively given information about the risks that other adults might pose to a child.
As part of my preparation for the debate, I had the opportunity to speak to a range of organisations working to protect children, as well as to organisations involved in existing disclosure and notification schemes, including Operation Encompass, which ensures that schools and, soon, early years education providers are notified when a child is at a home where there has been an attended incident of domestic abuse.
A child risk disclosure scheme along the lines requested in Maya’s law would be a significant undertaking. It would need to be clear about thresholds. For example, would only convictions be disclosed, or would wider intelligence about risk be too? I note that, last month, the Government announced they would create a new child cruelty register, following campaigning from the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell. Will the Minister say a little about how the Government envisage the information held in that register being disclosable and to whom? Could that serve as the first step to the wider disclosure scheme that the petition seeks?
Any disclosure scheme would also have to specify who has the right to request or receive information. It is important to note at this point the range of different family structures that safeguarding, in practice and law, must operate with. In many cases, including Maya’s, a child’s parents may be separated. In some circumstances, wider family members, such as aunts, provide important supplementary caring roles, and their involvement is a contributing factor in strengthening the safety of a child. It is important that the professionals involved have the time and curiosity to understand the different structures and dynamics of the families they are working with.
In Maya’s case, disclosure was directed towards her mother, who tragically did not ensure her safety. In the review of Maya’s death, it was recommended that agencies should have shown greater professional curiosity and follow-up when a separated father such as James shared worries about his child. Across all serious case reviews of child deaths, the failure to share information between professionals is the most common issue identified and the main area where improvement could prevent harm.
However, it has also been flagged to me that there can sometimes be risks of sharing too much information beyond professionals, depending on the relationship dynamics of a particular family. Operation Encompass notifications are limited to trained recipients of information in professional settings. Gemma’s view is that the benefits afforded by proactive sharing would outweigh such risks, and she wants any disclosures to be as full as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister set out in his response what opportunities there are safely to increase the information available to families about the risks that children face, whether that be through a disclosure scheme or other mechanisms.
Everyone I have spoken to recognises that any new disclosure scheme would require significant resourcing in order to be implemented appropriately. I have heard consistently that resources too often do not meet demand in the current safeguarding system, with many organisations concerned that police forces do not have the capacity to meet the growing requirements on them. Can the Minister say something about the level of resources he envisages will be required to implement measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? Can he also say whether, following implementation of steps such as the unique child identifier, which may in time enable more automated sharing of information between agencies, there will be a release of resource that could then be utilised for disclosure schemes such as that sought through Maya’s law?
Maya’s family believe that a disclosure scheme would have made a big difference in their tragic case, but they know that keeping children safe also requires child-focused services that can provide proactive and independent assessment of a child’s wellbeing and safety. That is a matter not of legislative change, but of clear service standards and proper resourcing. The Government rightly highlight their commitment to expanding early support for families, including through family hubs, but can the Minister say a bit more about his assessment of the wider services that contribute to safeguarding, especially health visiting, which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has raised particular concern about? Maya did not receive the health visitor visits she should have, and such a visit could potentially have resulted in someone spotting the abuse she was being subjected to. Health visitor numbers have fallen by 43% since 2015, and some health visitors report caseloads of up to 1,000 families. One in five children does not receive their final health visitor review at age two—the age Maya was when she was killed. How do the Government plan to close that gap? Given that we know that child deaths from abuse and neglect are concentrated in the infant years, does the Minister believe that health visiting should be a priority area for investment in the forthcoming NHS workforce plan?
I will draw my speech to a close with a reflection on the emphasis by Maya’s family on the need for urgent action. It is frustrating to me—I am sure that it is to other Members as well, but it is perhaps particularly frustrating to a new Member of Parliament—that the landmark child protection legislation introduced by the Government, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we voted on for the first time in January 2025, has still not completed its passage through Parliament to become law. Although proper legislative scrutiny is of course necessary, I think it is fair to say that the public do not understand why it takes so long to pass changes in the law through this place. I think MPs and peers of all parties need to reflect on how we work here and how that impacts on the pace of change that families such as Maya’s rightly demand.
When that law is enacted, what can each of us do to ensure that its changes are implemented as quickly as possible? Perhaps the Minister can say whether an implementation timescale will be published and reported back on. How quickly can we get to the point at which further changes, including a disclosure scheme bearing Maya’s name, are possible? Her family expect action, the 110,000 signatories of this petition expect action and our constituents expect action—action to ensure that fewer children are killed by abuse and neglect, action to share more information and action to develop better safeguarding systems to protect wonderful, smiling children like Maya. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions to this important debate.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the petitioners, and for setting out clearly the need for a child risk disclosure mechanism for at-risk children.
What happened to Maya Chappell was a tragedy. It was a failure across our public services that led to the death of a toddler. It should never have happened and must never happen again. I am here to speak as the constituency MP for Maya’s great-aunts, Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls, and her many other family members, including her father, James Chappell, who have driven this campaign and have worked so hard to get more than 110,000 signatures. This is not only their campaign: it has brought together our local community in Consett and people across County Durham and from every constituency. It is a campaign that says, “This must stop.”
We must not just learn from Maya’s death but act to protect vulnerable and at-risk children. This coming together is the tireless work of Maya’s great-aunts, Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls. I pay tribute to them for drawing all of us into their campaign and working with other families who have lost children through abuse to achieve that change. There are too many children to mention, but Gemma and Rachael have worked with the families of Star Hobson, Daniel Pelka, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Tony Hudgell, who survived but still bears the scars. I know the pain they have felt and are still feeling, and I commend them for their work.
The system failed Maya. Her father, James, noticed bruises and approached Durham’s First Contact service with his concerns about the mother’s new partner, Michael Daymond. He was told to contact the police, who processed the matter under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law. However, an officer simply phoned Maya’s mother, who lied and said that the relationship was over. The police closed the case without even the courtesy of a single face-to-face visit or seeing Maya. The safeguarding review explicitly called out that lack of professional curiosity.
Those failures clearly show that there is still a gap that needs to be addressed. That Maya’s case was reported under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law and there was still not a single home visit shows that there is more to be done. Both laws are police-led schemes. Sarah’s law covers only convicted child sexual offenders and Clare’s law focuses on domestic abuse against an adult partner. Neither scheme protects a child in their own right from an adult with a history of non-sexual physical abuse, neglect or coercive control. Unlike the previous two laws, Maya’s law would place a statutory duty on multiple agencies, including the police and healthcare and social care providers.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I, too, commend the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on his excellent opening speech on behalf of the petitioners. Star Hobson, who was murdered in 2020, was a constituent of mine. The findings of that case highlighted dysfunctionality in the reporting across all the safeguarding organisations that were ultimately responsible. I absolutely support Maya’s law and the recommendations in it. Does the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) agree that when safeguarding concerns are raised, all organisations should be duty bound to feed into the process in the best interests of the child?
Liz Twist
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that Gemma and Rachael have worked very closely with Star Hobson’s family to ensure that lessons are learned and action is taken. That is why there is such widespread support for this proposal.
Maya’s law would place a statutory duty across multiple agencies, including the police and healthcare and social care providers, proactively to disclose relevant risk histories to a child’s protective parent or guardian. Maya’s law could then trigger protective action based on documented patterns of concern, closing the dangerous gap where abusers hide because they do not yet have a formal criminal charge.
The death of Maya Chappell is not, sadly, an isolated incident. It is part of a devastating national pattern, which is of great concern. Across the country, 35% of child homicides—the murder of someone under 16, with their whole life ahead of them—are committed by a parent or step-parent. Those are the people a child is meant to trust the most. More than 50% of serious case reviews cite communication failures as a primary cause of child deaths. That represents a serious and persistent failure to protect children in their own homes.
In January, the Government formally responded to this petition, stating that they are
“not minded to introduce the elements of a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme requiring police to disclose information to parents and guardians”.
With the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in its final stages, there will be real improvements in child protection, with multi-agency child protection teams and other measures being introduced, but there is still a flaw within the Bill. Although clause 4 does, for the first time, require professional agencies such as local authorities, education providers and NHS trusts to share information, it misses the key point in Maya’s law—it does not mandate the disclosure of any information to the protective non-abusive parent. Sharing data between agencies does nothing—did nothing—to help a father like James Chappell, who was left in the dark while his daughter was murdered.
The Minister has been very helpful over the last year, but I want to ask him some specific questions. Will he take steps beyond data sharing between professionals to guarantee the right of the protective non-abusive parent to be informed of a risk that threatens their child? Will he introduce measures to ensure that information received by professionals in all agencies is acted on consistently and swiftly, and shared with protective parents or carers, to ensure that children are protected from harm?
I hope that the Minister will continue to work so that tragedies like Maya’s murder never happen again. I know that hope is shared by the 110,000 petitioners, and by Gemma, Rachael, James and the whole community of Consett and County Durham. Our children deserve no less.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate, and my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her excellent speech. I pay tribute to the family of Maya Chappell, including her great-aunts, Gemma and Rachael, for their tireless advocacy on behalf of children up and down the country.
I have been contacted by constituents horrified by the tragic death of Maya Chappell in County Durham. Existing frameworks, which often focus on adult victims rather than child-specific risks, failed to protect Maya. There is clearly a gap that needs to be filled to ensure that we are protecting children from non-sexual physical abuse risks. The cost of inaction could not be higher. When the system fails to pick up on the risks facing a child, the most devastating consequences can follow and young lives can be lost. Maya’s death ought to compel us to do better to protect children.
In my constituency, more than 6,000 people signed the petition that led to this debate, which is the second highest number of signatures in any constituency in the country. I am grateful to them for using their voices to raise awareness of what happened to Maya and to prevent it from happening ever again. County Durham is a place with a proud tradition of strong communities that look out for each other. That has been demonstrated by the strength of feeling made clear by my constituents and the constituents of neighbouring MPs about this tragedy.
Today’s debate is an opportunity for Parliament to match that spirit with concrete action to safeguard children, not only in County Durham but across the country. That is why I am backing my constituents’ call for the introduction of a child risk disclosure scheme that would be similar in structure to previous steps forward in protecting people from violent crime, such as Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but explicitly tailored to children. Such a scheme would mandate proactive information sharing among police, social services, health and other bodies about the risk of caregivers committing such awful crimes before it is too late.
Alongside more than 100,000 people across the country, this campaign is backed by the Durham police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, and the North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness. Today, I join colleagues from the north-east of England and across the country in calling on the Government to introduce a child risk disclosure scheme, so that no family have to endure the heartbreak that Maya’s family have suffered, and we all do everything that we can to protect children.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue and for the petition, which has been signed by more than 110,000 people, as we have heard. That level of support reflects the simple truth that children are still at risk of falling through the cracks despite warnings being raised by family members.
At the heart of this campaign is Maya Chappell, a two-year-old girl from Durham who should still be with us. However, in 2022, she was murdered by the partner of her mother. Subsequent medical investigations revealed that she had suffered a host of injuries including severe brain trauma and internal bleeding. She should have had the chance to grow up, to be safe and to be surrounded by the love, care and protection that every child deserves, but that was cruelly taken from her by someone who should have provided that very care. This tragedy occurred despite warnings from Maya’s father and concerns from other relatives. Social services and police both had pieces of the puzzle, yet nobody was able to put those pieces together.
Running through child safeguarding reviews is the fact that information is often kept in silos. Whether in the case of Victoria Climbié in 2000, Daniel Pelka in 2012 or Dwelaniyah Robinson, murdered by his mother in my constituency just days after Maya Chappell, agencies were aware of some of the dangers but were not aware that other agencies had concerns. That is the Achilles heel of child protection: it is rarely the case that nobody knows anything, rather that everyone knows a little bit. That is why Maya’s law matters. Too often, our safeguarding arrangements operate in a reactive way. We wait for a threshold to be crossed, or a pattern to become undeniable, but children do not get that time back. In safeguarding, to delay is to increase that risk.
The Government’s response to this petition acknowledges that. The response says that
“proactive information sharing…is critical”
and it points to wider reforms through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including a new duty to share information and broader multi-agency changes. I welcome any step that helps agencies work together better and to protect children earlier.
The campaigners’ concern, and the concern of many of us in this place, is that those reforms still do not guarantee that risk will be proactively identified, assessed and acted upon. That is the crucial point. The Government say that the system will be better at sharing information. Maya’s family ask harder questions: better at sharing with whom, at what point, and with what urgency, when a child may already be in danger?
Maya’s campaign proposes a child risk disclosure scheme, modelled in part on the principles behind Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but focused on the broader risk history of caregivers. It calls for stronger and clearer multi-agency protocols when child contact occurs or custody is being considered, and for professionals to be mandated to raise alerts and proactively disclose a person’s relevant history of non-sexual child abuse or neglect to a child’s parent or guardian.
Any new system must be properly designed. It must make clear who makes decisions, what threshold is applied, what information is relevant, and which agency leads on these matters.
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Given the experience of the Star Hobson case in my constituency, where the grandparents were instrumental, does the hon. Member agree that we need a clear flagging system of risk posed to such children, and that information should be shared not just with agencies but with key family members who are raising concerns, whether they be parents, grandparents or anyone who fulfils a guardian role?
Mary Kelly Foy
I wholeheartedly agree; that was about to be my next point. Of course, the information must be shared with the relevant agencies, and whenever concerns are brought to those agencies they must also be raised with family members. None of this is a reason to reject the principle; it is a reason to do the work properly. The Government have to act on what Maya’s family are saying. They must recognise that, while the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill may improve information sharing, that is not the same as proactively identifying risk and acting before harm occurs.
This debate is a tribute to Maya’s family. What they have done in turning unimaginable personal tragedy into a campaign to improve the lives of other children across the country reflects a level of bravery and compassion that we should all be in awe of. Having met Gemma and Rachael several times, I know that I am. But we cannot let this be the end of it. This debate alone does not protect one more child—now we need action. Never forget: Maya should still be here. The least we owe her, her family and every child like her is a system that does not just collect information but proactively uses it to keep children safe.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) from the Petitions Committee for the way in which he introduced this important debate. I also pay tribute to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), my neighbour, for her work in leading this campaign.
I wish to register my support for the creation of Maya’s law. I do not propose to repeat the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made in his opening remarks, but we hope for a favourable response from the Minister on the four specific asks that he set out.
Maya was living in my constituency. She was just two years old. She was living in Shotton Colliery when her life was cut short. Her death was not the result of a single unforeseeable act, but the consequence of sustained abuse. During that time there were warning signs. Concerns were raised by her father and by other family members. Questions were asked, but unfortunately the safeguarding systems that are meant to protect our most vulnerable children failed to act.
Time and again, serious case reviews into child deaths tell the same story. Information exists, but it is not shared. Risks have been identified, but not escalated. Agencies are involved, but they do not always communicate or co-operate as they should. In fact, in over 50% of serious case reviews, communication failures are cited as a primary cause. As a result, children can and do fall through the gaps between the very services that are designed to keep them safe.
Maya’s law seeks to close those gaps and to move us away from a system that too often is reactive to harm and towards one that works to prevent harm. That means ensuring that information about potential risks to children is not only gathered but shared promptly between the professionals who need it, and as was stated earlier, shared with family members who raise those concerns too, so that there is a positive feedback loop and they know that the concerns they have raised have been acted upon and are not being filed away.
The proposed child risk disclosure scheme would build on existing frameworks, such as those that allow disclosures in cases of domestic abuse or known sexual offending, but it would go further. It would recognise that the danger to children does not always come from individuals who have previous convictions. Risks can arise in many forms and are often hidden in plain sight. By enabling professionals and, where appropriate, concerned family members to access and act on relevant information, Maya’s law would provide an additional layer of protection, one that is rooted in prevention and not simply in reaction.
We must also address the issue of thresholds. Too often, intervention comes only when a risk has reached a critical or even catastrophic level. Maya’s law asks us to consider whether we are waiting too long and require too much certainty before we act to protect a child. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised many of these challenges and that they are being addressed in legislation such as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Such legislation will strengthen information sharing and hopefully improve multi-agency working.
Those steps are important and welcome, but I believe that we must go further and be prepared to take every action necessary to better protect children. Maya’s law is not just a technical change; it represents a shift in approach and a recognition that safeguarding must be proactive, not reactive or passive. That responsibility must be shared, not siloed, and when concerns are raised about a child they must be taken seriously and acted upon, with clear legal duties for professionals to act on any sign of harm.
Of course, we must strike the right balance. Sharing sensitive information is not something to be done lightly, but where there is a credible risk to a child’s safety, we should be clear that protecting that child must always come first and be the priority. Children like Maya cannot advocate for themselves in the way that adults can; they rely entirely on the oversight, judgment and co-operation of the adults and institutions around them. When that system fails, the consequences are devastating.
Sadly, Maya’s story is not an isolated case, as other Members have identified. It reflects other tragedies that we have seen in recent years, each one raising the same question: could it have been prevented? Supporting Maya’s law means learning those lessons and, more importantly, acting on them. It means building a safeguarding system that is not only responsive but preventive. Above all, it means ensuring that when warning signs appear—as they often do, and as they did in this case—we act, so that we are never again left asking why more was not done.
I will finish by paying tribute, as many Members have, to Maya’s family and in particular her great-aunts, Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls; I am so sorry for mixing them up earlier. They are a formidable double act, and we all admire their determination in campaigning to ensure that no other family has to endure such a loss. I am certain that this campaign will continue until Maya’s law is secure. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues across this House—this is not a party political issue, because we all agree about what needs to be done—to ensure that a child risk disclosure scheme becomes a reality at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. At the start of this year, I held a debate similar to this one, also in Westminster Hall, on local authority children’s services. I did so following the appalling abuse, torture and murder of a 10-year-old Woking constituent, Sara Sharif. What happened to Sara was heartbreaking for my whole community. I think that many people back home in Woking thought that what happened was so extreme and so awful that it was a one-off case. Today I have heard that it was not. This happens far too often. The circumstances of these deaths have a common theme: time and again, the state is systematically missing warning signs, and avoiding implementing formal recommendations or suggestions from petitioners that could reduce those risks. That must change.
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for dedicating much of her parliamentary career to improving child safeguarding; we all owe her a huge debt of thanks. I also thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the excellent way in which he introduced this e-petition debate. It is a very emotional debate, and he introduced it in a calm manner. There has been a huge outpouring of support for the campaign to fix child safeguarding issues, and the fact that the petition was signed by more than 110,000 people speaks volumes. The signatories are disproportionately from the north-east of England, and Labour Members present can be proud of their home region. Finally, I thank Gemma and Rachael for leading on the petition and ensuring not just that this petition is being debated in Parliament today but that this issue has been debated before. They are taking something that is hugely personally difficult for them and are trying to ensure that Maya has an amazing legacy.
The Liberal Democrats and I think the new disclosure and safeguarding mechanisms for at-risk children should be implemented. I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party consensus on this issue, but we need action. There is definitely a way that the state can share information better when a child is at risk, whether from a parent, a caregiver or someone else. It might be that the threshold to trigger full action is not met, but it is key to ensure that information is shared fully. A significant lack of information sharing was one of the reasons listed in the safeguarding report into Sara’s brutal murder. It was clearly an issue in Maya’s case, and it was also an issue in the Southport inquiry, which reported only today. It is a systemic issue.
I know I am meant to turn to my asks of the Minister towards the end of my speech, but I have to lead with this one. Some Ministers are responsible for cross-portfolio issues—the Security Minister for one. Does the Minister before us think that sharing information should be a cross-portfolio issue? Do the Government take it so seriously that they would task unblocking the issue to one Minister who could knock heads together across Departments?
I highlighted the case of Sara Sharif, which was a stark example of information sharing going horribly wrong. The day before she was murdered, social services went to visit her house. They went to visit the wrong house. They could have saved her. In court, the family talked about the concerns they had in Sara’s case. In Maya’s case, the family raised concerns about seeing suspicious bruises on Maya in the weeks before her death. She was a two-year-old girl. Several different relatives saw bruises on Maya, but when they flagged them with her mother, they were told that Maya caused them herself.
Maya attended two days of nursery but was then pulled out. The judge said it seemed clear that her mother feared staff would notice the bruises and report them. In the case of Sara Sharif, I have said that a parent or guardian should lose the right to home educate if there are concerns about safeguarding. That is absolutely key. Should parents lose the right to pull their child out of nursery if there are concerns about safeguarding? I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. How can we ensure that legislation is put in place to better protect our vulnerable children?
The bruises were brushed off by the person who should have protected Maya. In Sara’s case, the judge stated that “despicable treatment” took place in “plain sight”. I heard about the lack of professional curiosity mentioned in Maya’s and Sara’s cases, and that is tragic.
A lot of Members have talked about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill making notable progress, and I am looking forward to supporting it when it finally comes back to us after being amended. The Bill is progress, but progress is not good enough when we are talking about protecting vulnerable children. It should go further and be implemented faster.
In my constituency, Ofsted reviewed Surrey county council’s children’s services just before Sara’s murder and rated it good. From what I know about child protection failings, I cannot see why it gave the council’s children’s services that rating. I have heard from special educational needs and disabilities parents who also cannot understand why the council was rated good. I am concerned about the quality of Ofsted’s investigations.
As with Surrey, the Durham Safeguarding Children Partnership commissioned a report examining the circumstances leading to Maya’s death. The report highlighted missed opportunities where agencies were meant to protect her but could have offered more support and guidance. It listed failure and missed opportunity. Durham county council’s children’s services were rated good just four months before Maya’s death. There are 66 authorities in England that are rated good. Is Ofsted good enough to protect vulnerable children if it keeps missing the warning signs?
The Minister and I have met many times to discuss child safeguarding issues. I appreciate his experience and thoughts on these issues, but we do not want to have another debate like this where other MPs raise deeply personal, traumatic things happening in their constituencies when the state saw warning signs but did not take them forward. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure better data protection and how we can improve Ofsted.
I think all of us support Clare’s and Sarah’s laws. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are reviewing the success and impact of those laws? Once the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is eventually implemented, will the Minister agree to monitor, as a matter of urgency, how the multi-agency assessments and the registry are working? If those measures are not good enough, will the Minister agree to introduce Maya’s law?
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing this debate, and other Members for their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), who described so movingly the circumstances leading to Maya’s death and the campaign led by her family. This important issue unites us across party lines, because it is about the safety of children and ensuring that we protect the most vulnerable members of our society. I pay tribute to the work of Maya’s family, who have called for new legislation to focus specifically on child abuse and neglect, which would seek to ensure that alarms are raised if caregivers pose a risk to children.
This petition received more than 110,000 signatures and calls for four significant changes. First, it calls for the introduction of a child risk disclosure system—CRDS—which would seek to capture a broader risk history of caregivers. Secondly, it seeks to require statutory services, including the police, social care services and health workers, to disclose relevant history to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified. Thirdly, it seeks to establish multi-agency protocols, particularly where child contact, custody or unsupervised access are being considered. Fourthly, it seeks to empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family safeguarding interventions where known risks exist, even if not currently under active investigation.
Under the previous Conservative Government, several measures were introduced that provided a template for how the CRDS could work. For example, Sarah’s law was introduced in 2011, which established a child sex offender disclosure system. It allows an individual to formally ask the police whether someone who has contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences or poses a risk to the child for some other reason. In 2014, the last Government introduced Clare’s law, which established the domestic violence disclosure system, which enables the police to disclose information to a victim or potential victim of domestic abuse about their partner or ex-partner’s previous abusive or violent offending.
The shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has highlighted that, in some cases, such as with the perpetrators who abused Tony Hudgell, there is a risk that they will finish serving their sentence but questions about how they will be supervised and monitored will remain following that. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has raised the issue of information-sharing gaps with the Government. The Government need to consider how they can best support local authorities in delivering their child protection duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the priority is to ensure that all preventable abuse is indeed prevented. Given that more than half of serious case reviews cite communication failures as a primary cause, does the Minister agree that more needs to be done before an offence is committed? It should be a priority for the Government to ensure that safeguarding is co-ordinated, and that children do not fall through the cracks of the protection system. Those who are a risk to children should be monitored and managed. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that safeguarding is prioritised? The UK Government’s actions need to support safeguarding data sharing, including at a local level, because we must not risk safeguarding becoming a postcode lottery where some areas are more at risk.
I very much hope that the Minister appreciates the sentiment of the tireless campaigners who brought this petition: that one death that could have been prevented is one death too many.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate, and for doing so in a way that builds on the important debate held in this Chamber on 14 October, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). I also thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate today from across different parties and have recognised the amazing young children whose lives were tragically cut far too short.
I also want to reiterate what I said on 14 October because it underpins the whole debate: no child should ever suffer at the hands of someone who was entrusted with their care and
“no family should endure such a loss.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 94WH.]
I want to recognise Maya’s family, in particular Gemma and Rachael who I have had the privilege to meet and spend time with over the past few months. Their unwavering determination took the petition from more than 6,000 responses back in October to 110,000 when it closed in February. I am grateful to them for giving up their time to meet with not just me, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and officials from the Home Office. I am grateful for their ongoing, tireless campaign to bring about change.
Through their petition, they are calling for the creation of a child risk disclosure scheme known as Maya’s law, which would require statutory services to disclose relevant past history when a risk is identified, establish multi-agency responses with protocols, and empower professionals to raise alerts where known risks exist. Changes to deliver the goals of Maya’s law are, I believe, in train. We are taking a number of steps to further strengthen existing schemes and improve multi-agency working. I hope to set out in some detail how the Government are doing that.
At the moment, the Government are taking action to strengthen information sharing in particular in three separate but complimentary ways. First, through strengthening the child sex offender disclosure scheme, which been referenced throughout the debate; secondly, through the introduction of a child cruelty register, which was not something on the cards when we last had this debate in October; and thirdly, through introducing a new information sharing duty in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Those changes cover different aspects of sharing information; they are changes that will come into effect in law and some of them are new since the debate we had at the end of last year.
As referenced in the petition, Sarah’s law already allows members of the public to make an application to the police for information where they have a child protection concern, enabling the police to disclose information to those best placed to safeguard a child from harm. Although formally known as the child sex offender disclosure scheme, it extends well beyond those offences to the disclosure of any relevant information that the police hold that is necessary to protect a child. That may include previous convictions for child sexual abuse, a history of child cruelty, domestic violence or intelligence relating to violent or sexual offences. The maximum timescale for Sarah’s law applications to be completed is 28 days from start to finish unless extenuating circumstances justify an extension. Where an imminent risk of harm to a child is identified, the police must take immediate action to safeguard those at risk.
Sarah’s law does not rely solely on applications from members of the public; it also provides a framework for the police to make proactive disclosures when they believe a child is at risk of serious harm. For example, if the police become aware of an adult with a conviction, caution or charge for child abuse having unsupervised access to a child, they can and will disclose that information to the person best placed to protect that child—usually a parent, carer or guardian—whether or not a Sarah’s law application has been made.
That is the current situation, which goes far beyond just cases of child sexual abuse, but in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament the Government are going further by strengthening Sarah’s law and placing it on a statutory footing. The clauses in that Bill will mean that chief police officers will have a statutory duty to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance, which will be issued shortly after the passage of the Bill on Sarah’s law. In practice, that will reinforce and strengthen the police’s responsibility to make disclosures whenever necessary to protect a child.
In addition, the same Bill will establish a new child cruelty register. That will require adults convicted of child cruelty offences to notify the police of key changes in their circumstances in the same way that registered sex offenders need to at the moment. That improves the visibility of known risks and supports police to make informed decisions, including where disclosure under existing schemes, such as Sarah’s law, may be necessary to protect a child. At this point, I want to pay particular tribute to Tony Hudgell’s family for their campaigning on this specific change.
Finally, through our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are addressing long-standing misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. We are introducing a new information-sharing duty and placing a clear legal obligation on police, children’s social care, health and other relevant agencies to share information to safeguard children. That responds directly to findings from, among others, the independent review of children’s social care, which I led before being elected to this House. It found that despite existing legislation there were both perceived and real barriers to sharing information between different agencies. We have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other Government Departments to ensure that the duty supports sharing across the full breadth of safeguarding or when promoting the welfare of children. That, along with the single unique identifier—which I referenced in the debate on this matter in October—will help professionals build a clearer picture of a child’s life.
Crucially, and relevant to Maya’s story, the information-sharing duty requires practitioners to share information with each other about other individuals in a child’s life where that information is relevant to safeguarding or promoting a child’s welfare. More robust information sharing will enable practitioners to act on and inform families of concerns appropriately. It also makes clear that any information that could protect a child should be shared at the earliest opportunity to prevent harm. Once the Bill is passed, I will be eager to fully involve Gemma and Rachael in the early drafts of the statutory guidance that would deliver on this commitment in the Bill. There will be an implementation plan published imminently after the Bill, and I am just as eager as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central to see that the Bill is passed soon.
I also want to underscore that there have been debates in this House about the issue of malicious allegations. These are often made and are a feature of the children’s social care system where we have complicated family circumstances and people coming forward with information that may not always be wholly accurate. With that being a large feature of some of the information that services have access to, we should note that we need to design information-sharing systems that account for those kinds of malicious allegations.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the Minister for his response and the very welcome commitment that he has made to involve the family in the development of the statutory guidance. As he alludes to, family circumstances differ significantly and the person in the family best placed to keep a child safe may or may not have parental responsibility—in some cases, it may be a grandparent, an aunt or so on. Will the Minister ensure that the statutory guidance reflects that in terms of the wider disclosure beyond just parents?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that the question for children’s social care teams and anyone involved as a statutory safeguarding partner for these children needs to be: who is around this child who loves and cares about them? That will differ significantly among children. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned a case where it was the grandparent who was a really important part of a child’s life and was missing from the picture. We need to make sure the statutory guidance reflects that among children it will often be very different.
Strengthening child protection is this Government’s absolute priority, which means acting early so that the right support is in place before harms occur. That is why we are delivering landmark reforms by overhauling children’s social care, not just through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the ways that I have highlighted, but with £2.4 billion of investment in changing our family help and child protection systems. We are also introducing multi-agency child protection teams, which will be mandated through the Bill, enhancing the child sex offender disclosure scheme and introducing the new child cruelty register. Together, those reforms put learning into action.
I hope to continue working with Gemma, Rachael and other family members who have been affected by these awful tragic stories to strengthen the implementation of these reforms, as well as others in the future. They reflect the loud call for change that this petition rightly demands. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central for opening this debate, and all those who have contributed to it. Let us honour Maya’s memory with not just words but change as soon as possible, so that no child is left unprotected, and no family unheard.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank all Members for contributing to this important and serious debate. As we can tell from the Members present, this issue has a particular north-east focus, because it was our part of the world where Maya lived and was loved, and where she was tragically killed. However, this issue is far from specific to the north-east, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), made clear when he referred to the case of Sara Sharif. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) also made that clear.
Too many children across the whole country are killed by abuse and neglect, and I really welcome the Minister’s commitment to involving the family in the development of the statutory guidance, and the recognition that, in many cases, families come in different shapes and sizes. They sometimes have different dynamics, and social workers and other agencies need to have the professional space and time to figure out who in any family is best placed to help safeguard a child. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to introduce a duty to share information between agencies, which is absolutely right and welcome. However, there will always be a family member who potentially has additional information. They will love the child as they are, and—no disrespect to any professionals involved—that is a key part of the safety picture for any individual child.
I welcome the Minister’s commitments on this issue. Let us hope that we can get this legislation passed, as well as the following statutory guidance, which will take us a step closer to Maya’s law and the progress and action that the family requires. I know that Gemma and Rachael wanted to ensure that Maya’s voice was heard in Parliament today, and I hope they feel that it has been. I thank all Members again, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for the work she has done on this issue and for her contribution today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Cabinet Office
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?
Darren Jones
I was not privy to those appointments, so I cannot confirm the exact details that the right hon. Member asks of me. What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director of propriety and ethics is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 32.]
Written correction submitted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
…What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director general of the propriety and constitution group is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
The following extract is from the statement on the Government response to the Humble Address relating to Lord Mandelson on 23 February 2026.
Matt Bishop
… I welcome comments from the Prime Minister calling for legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Mandelson, and I hope he will go even further and look at the line of succession in the royal family—I welcome those updates. My constituents, victims groups and everyone I speak to say that it is great to hear the messages, but they want to know when. Do we have any timescales for when this legislation will be brought to the House?
Darren Jones
We are working with relevant advisers and Departments to scope the Bill, and the measures that need to be brought forward for that to be effective. The legislation raises a number of constitutional questions, which have taken some time for the Government to consider. The last time peerages were removed, I think, was in the 1600s, so it is not something that has been done recently. We must ensure that the scope and drafting of the Bill is done in a way that means it will be effective when it is brought forward to the House.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 47.]
Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
… The last time peerages were removed was in 1917, so it is not something that has been done recently.
Written Statements
Carbon Dioxide Supply
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
This statement provides an update on Government intervention in the supply of carbon dioxide.
On 26 March 2026, in response to risks to supply chains arising from the ongoing conflict in the middle east, the Government directed Ensus UK Ltd to restart production to generate a significant volume of carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide will be captured and sold to the market for use in food manufacture and preservation, beverage manufacture, energy, healthcare, and other essential applications.
For several months, the Government have been in discussion with Ensus to agree a standby arrangement. Under this arrangement, Ensus is required to maintain the plant in a quiescent state, at modest cost to Government, and keeps it ready to be activated at short notice in the event of a carbon dioxide shortage, or a credible risk of one emerging.
When the Government could have stepped back and let the plant close last year, we stepped in to keep it available. This intervention illustrates the different approach taken by this Government—an active and strategic state prepared to act where it is in the national interest. While previous Governments closed Britain’s gas storage, this Government have repeatedly acted to support our resilience, from saving British Steel from collapse to securing the future of the chemical cracker at Grangemouth. The Ensus intervention is part of that same deliberate pattern.
It forms part of wider Government work to ensure the UK maintains access to critical industrial inputs during periods of global supply disruption, such as the ongoing conflict in the middle east.
The Government are also taking steps to diversify the UK’s long-term carbon dioxide supply, strengthening UK resilience and reducing exposure to future global shocks. We will work with industry to develop and deliver this long-term plan.
My Department will continue to work with industry and relevant lead Government Departments to monitor risks to supply. We will protect taxpayers’ money by operating the plant only for as long as necessary. This is why we have agreed that the plant will operate for an initial period of three months but will be subject to regular review. The Department for Business and Trade will closely monitor the associated spend, which will be reported in DBT’s accounts for 2026-27, with 2025-26 spend also disclosed in the annual report and accounts. If conditions require it, the Government will not hesitate to extend this period and will retain the ability to restart the plant for a longer period as a precautionary measure.
[HCWS1501]
Trade Union Access to the Workplace and TUPE Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government have set the country on the path of national renewal, building a Britain for all on the firm foundations of security, respect and opportunity. That means creating an economy that delivers for working people: productive, profitable and growing, and creating the best environment for business by maximising job security to raise productivity, improve skills and cut the costs of staff turnover.
The Government’s plan to make work pay will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work, delivered in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers and civil society.
Government response to the consultation “Make Work Pay: trade union right of access”
As part of this, last autumn we consulted on strengthening trade union access to the workplace. Respondents engaged extensively, and their feedback has been carefully analysed and used to inform the final statutory access framework.
The Government response published today sets out the decisions and how the right of access framework will operate in practice, ensuring it is proportionate and enables regulated and responsible union access to the workplace. This includes:
Clear requirements for written union access requests and employer responses, supported by Government-issued templates;
Defined time periods for responses, negotiation and any referrals to the Central Arbitration Committee, with flexibility for agreed extensions;
Circumstances where the CAC must refuse access and when it may be reasonable to do so, ensuring safeguards for all parties; and
A three-tier enforcement system and clear factors the CAC must consider when setting fines, such as the scale and resources of the liable party.
Consultation on draft code of practice on Trade Union Right of Access
Alongside the Government response, we are launching a consultation on a new draft code of practice on statutory trade union access. The code will provide clear, practical guidance for employers and unions on how to navigate the new framework and apply it across different types of workplaces. This is an opportunity for all interested parties to help shape this guidance before it is finalised, helping ensure that the new statutory right of access is well understood and supports smooth, effective implementation.
The consultation will run for six weeks, closing in April.
The final policy details for trade union access to workplaces will be set out in legislation through statutory instruments, which will be laid in Parliament this summer alongside the code of practice.
TUPE Call for Evidence
Today we are also launching a call for evidence on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—TUPE. The Make Work Pay plan committed to reforming the TUPE regulations. The regulations exist to support business transfers and protect staff whose job is moved to a new employer. We believe firms should be able to smoothly transfer part or all of their business or transfer service provision, and supporting a stable workforce during transitions can in turn support a competitive business environment. The TUPE regulations should be easy to understand and follow for employers and protect staff.
We intend to consider reforms based on these principles —maintaining the right level of employment rights and protections but simplifying the process for employers.
Through this call for evidence, we will gather evidence on the prevalence and experience of TUPE, including on how many employees it affects and what types of employees and employers are affected. It will also gather evidence on whether employers understand the current rules, and whether the current required steps are followed in practice. We will engage stakeholders throughout. The information gathered will support decision making on any TUPE reforms.
Next steps
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. These consultations and the further consultations planned will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1499]
Industrial Strategy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I wish to update Parliament on a package of significant measures and a major investment to drive forward the delivery of the Industrial Strategy, strengthen the UK’s advanced manufacturing base, and ensure the country remains a leading hub for business and investment in a volatile global environment. This builds on the statement made in January, which set out measures to support scale-ups, accelerate battery innovation, and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. Alongside this package, the Government will publish the latest quarterly update on delivery of the Industrial Strategy and confirm the re-appointment of Clare Barclay as Chair of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council for a further term.
Delivering the Industrial Strategy with support for Advanced Manufacturing
We are backing the advanced manufacturing sector with over £700 million to help UK industry move faster towards electrification, create pathways into fulfilling, skilled careers and strengthen our supply chains. This will support up to 4,200 jobs, backing local communities and putting more money in people’s pockets.
At the heart of this package is a £380 million DRIVE35 grant to support the delivery of what will be one of Europe’s largest battery gigafactories in Somerset, with a frame of 100% British steel. This project, delivered by Agratas, will strengthen the UK’s battery manufacturing capability, support growth across the automotive and battery supply chains, and reinforce the competitiveness of the UK automotive sector as it transitions to electrification. The project is expected to support up to 4,200 jobs directly and a strong local skills pipeline, including apprenticeships and training in battery manufacturing and engineering, working with local partners such as the University Centre Somerset. It will supply batteries to Jaguar Land Rover, helping to anchor future electric vehicle production in the UK. This builds on previous Government action to support Jaguar Land Rover and its supply chain following the cyber-attack, helping to protect jobs across the automotive sector.
Backing business to transition, innovate, and compete
This investment sits within a wider package to help advanced manufacturing businesses transition, innovate and compete in electric vehicle manufacturing. This includes interventions from our DRIVE35 programme:
Announcing the winners of four R&D competitions worth £90 million, backing innovation across the UK automotive and battery ecosystem and supporting UK leadership in zero emission vehicle technologies, such as a £32 million project where JLR are partnering with semiconductor firm ARM to bring auto and tech firms together to advance software-defined vehicles technologies for EVs.
Funding of £100 million to help the automotive supply chain and support automotive suppliers to transition their systems and capabilities towards EV manufacturing, focused on the west midlands and north-east of England.
The package also includes the first round of multi-year R&D support through the battery innovation programme to back next-generation battery technologies and UK supply chain capabilities, with up to £22 million awarded—matched by industry—to UK-led R&D projects. We have also opened a round 2 competition, worth £25 million, to support business-led collaborative R&D. The package will support innovation in “breakthrough” battery cell materials, including novel cathode materials and solid-state batteries. It will enable UK battery firms to secure private investment and compete globally. This funding will support the development of a circular value chain in battery materials, mining, refining and recycling, and boost our economic resilience. We have also announced £1.4 million of connected and autonomous mobility pathfinder programme grants for feasibility studies exploring autonomous freight in Teesside, Sunderland and the Port of Tyne, as well as self-driving passenger services at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, at an NHS site, at an airport, and in London, advancing safer, more efficient, automated transport.
We are also expanding the Made Smarter adoption programme, doubling our investment up to £99 million over three years, to support manufacturing SMEs to adopt industrial digital technologies, growing local ecosystems and the significant sectoral strengths that are found across the English regions. Taken together, these measures will help firms invest in new capability, adopt new technologies, and build stronger domestic supply chains in strategically important sectors.
In addition, up to £16.44 million-worth of grants will be deployed from the Made Smarter innovation programme to drive the development of scalable, industrial digital technologies, improving productivity while reducing energy and resource use. The programme is designed to help manufacturing SMEs close the UK’s digitalisation gap by connecting innovators with real-world challenges and supporting solutions that boost productivity, resilience and sustainability.
Skills and jobs
The Government are also doubling down on creating a skilled workforce fit for the future and driving forward implementation of our £182 million industrial strategy engineering skills package. This includes £47 million of adult skills funding to train up the next generation of engineers and inventors, and we will be writing to Mayors shortly to allocate this funding to strategic authorities to ensure it is aligned with local needs.
This package also includes £1.8 million to expand engineering and construction T-level provision, and £8 million in capital funding to support clean energy engineering courses at levels 4 and 5. For example, Durham University will upgrade engineering laboratories and create a new flight controls lab to expand capacity in clean energy and advanced manufacturing, while Yeovil College will transform its engineering building with specialist equipment and redesigned teaching spaces to boost high-level skills in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and defence engineering.
A new battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit has been launched, which will help meet the skills needs of Agratas’s new Somerset gigafactory. The unit will give employers flexible, targeted training to quickly build the specialist workforce needed for the UK’s growing battery sector.
Access to finance
This package also reflects a step change in public financial institution support to UK industry. The British Business Bank is increasing support for advanced manufacturing as part of our wider funding for the industrial strategy sectors. From this month, it will deploy the additional £4 billion of industrial strategy growth capital to support growth and investment, and build the ecosystem of specialist investment funds focused on industrial strategy sectors. UK Export Finance has already backed over £6.6 billion of advanced manufacturing investment over the last two years. This includes £128 million to support the export of two submarine rescue vehicle systems to the Indonesian Navy. The deal will inject over £67 million into the UK economy through British suppliers SMP Ltd and Forum Energy Technologies Ltd to manufacture these advanced vehicles in York and Bristol, safeguarding and creating jobs across the domestic manufacturing and defence industries. In the summer they will announce plans to go even further, supercharging UKEF’s ability to help UK companies tap into the power of international markets.
This package demonstrates the Government’s determination to compete for the industries of the future, strengthen resilience in critical sectors, and back investors who create skilled jobs nationwide.
[HCWS1490]
Product Safety Framework Reform: Consultations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We have launched three consultations setting out major reforms to modernise the product safety framework and review the UK’s furniture fire safety regulations. Using the powers provided by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, our proposals will strengthen protection for consumers from unsafe products and create a level playing field that supports responsible businesses. Proposals will clarify responsibilities and streamline regulations, which will create certainty and support growth and investment. At the heart of these proposals is a commitment to consolidate and modernise market surveillance and enforcement powers across product safety legislation.
The existing product safety framework has been stretched to its limit by increasingly globalised supply chains and the ever-changing way in which consumers buy products. The new framework must address the issues of today and be prepared to deal with the potential challenges of tomorrow. Modern-day products and supply chains have exposed UK consumers to new harms. We have seen serious incidents that have tragically caused death and personal injury, from fatal house fires caused by unsafe e-bike batteries exploding, to children being injured by swallowing powerful magnets marketed as toys. These incidents highlight the real risks posed by unsafe products and are why these consultations are so important.
A particular challenge has been the rise of e-commerce, which has rapidly changed the way consumers buy products and exposed regulatory gaps in today’s global supply chains. For too long, online marketplaces have made third-party sales of dangerous products too easy. As announced in the Budget 2025, we are consulting on proposals to introduce new requirements on online marketplaces and create a level playing field for UK “bricks and mortar” businesses and our high streets.
We must ensure that people can rely on the safety of products they buy and use every day, whether in the home or the workplace. The consultations set out how we will bring product safety protections up to date and ensure they work for the future.
The consultations cover proposals in the following areas:
Getting the basics right: proposals for the new framework to cover a wider scope of products, updating how a safe product will be defined and how the safety of a product can be assessed to reflect modern technology and new hazards. This will be monitored through updated and consolidated enforcement powers.
Accountability throughout the supply chain: proposals setting out the responsibilities of businesses in scope of the new framework, including online marketplaces and online sellers, and their core obligations to protect consumers from dangerous products.
A new approach to product information: proposals to allow product information to be provided more flexibly—both physically and digitally—and to move towards a “digital by default” approach to product information.
Building on the new foundations: proposals for additional tools to manage products posing greater risk of harm and paving the way for further reform of sector and product-specific regulations; and a call for evidence on how artificial intelligence-enabled products can best be regulated to balance safety and innovation.
A reformed enforcement framework: addressing duplication, overlap and inconsistent terminology, and establishing a single, coherent framework that is clearer for regulators, more predictable for businesses, and better able to respond to modern risks. It will also modernise and consolidate the UK’s market surveillance system, giving authorities clearer, more consistent powers to act quickly on unsafe or non-compliant products across all routes to market, including online.
The consultations will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice. I encourage everyone with an interest in product safety to respond to the consultations and share their views to help deliver a safer future for all.
Alongside the two broad product safety framework consultations, we have published a third consultation to review the UK’s furniture fire safety regulations. This consultation sets out our intent to implement new furniture fire safety regulations that can be met by passing a smoulder test, which is consistent with the approach taken in much of the EU and the United States. This follows an evidence-led approach to craft a set of proposals that will maintain a high level of fire safety, while meaningfully reducing the reliance on chemical flame retardants.
These consultations will close after 12 weeks on 23 June 2026.
Alongside this package of consultations, the Government intend to introduce legislation to reform product labelling for certain products where the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—or CE marking applies. These measures follow the product safety review and the Government’s subsequent commitment to consider the most effective way to introduce digital labelling. The measures will give more flexibility to businesses over how these products are labelled, both physically and digitally. This is only the first step. The consultations build on this announcement and include proposals to provide greater flexibility in product labelling in the future.
I have placed copies of the consultations in the Library in both Houses.
[HCWS1496]
Subscription Contracts Regime: Response to Implementation Consultation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Subscription contracts play an increasingly significant role in the lives of UK consumers. Across the economy, people rely on subscription services for everything from streaming and software to meal kits, fitness, and household essentials. There are an estimated 155 million active subscriptions in the UK, representing around £26 billion of consumer spending each year. While this model brings genuine convenience for many, far too often people find themselves stuck in subscriptions they no longer want or need, or paying for contracts that automatically renewed without their full awareness. Some £1.6 billion is spent annually on unwanted subscriptions in the UK.
This Government are committed to protecting consumers and ensuring that they have clarity and control over their spending, especially during a time when household budgets are under pressure. Today we are taking an important step to deliver on that commitment by publishing the Government response to the consultation on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime.
This marks another milestone in enhancing consumer protection and implementing measures introduced in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. These will strengthen consumer rights and help people across the UK keep more of their hard-earned money, which will save consumers an average of £14 per month for every unwanted subscription they can cancel.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and established a new regulatory framework for subscription contracts. This requires businesses to give clear pre-contract information and send regular reminders about ongoing subscriptions. Businesses must also ensure that it is straightforward for consumers to cancel, and provide online cancellation if consumers can sign up online. The Act also introduces new statutory cancellation rights, including 14-day cooling-off periods when free or discounted trials roll on to higher full price terms or when contracts of 12 months or more auto-renew.
These measures maintain and build on existing protections under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
Government response to the consultation on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime
The Government have reviewed the evidence submitted through the consultation process and will bring forward secondary legislation for the following proposals:
Cooling-off rights and refunds
If a consumer exercises their 14-day initial cooling-off right (after they sign up) or 14 day renewal cooling-off right (after trial ends or a contract renews for longer than 12 months), new return and refund rules will provide:
For returnable goods, consumers will receive a refund when goods are returned, including standard delivery costs.
For perishable and bespoke goods, they will receive a full refund if they cancel before the goods are supplied. If they cancel after the goods are supplied, the trader will be entitled to reduce the refund by the value of those goods—including all delivery costs.
Where goods are sealed for specified reasons—for example, for health protection or hygiene—and become unsealed after delivery or goods become inseparably mixed with other goods after delivery, the trader will be entitled to reduce the consumer’s refund to cover the value of these now unreturnable goods.
For service contracts, if consumers cancel during an initial or renewal cooling-off period, they will be entitled to a partial refund proportionate to the services supplied before cancellation.
For digital content contracts, consumers may waive their initial cooling-off right in return for the supply of digital content during the initial cooling-off period. If consumers cancel during the renewal cooling-off period, they will be entitled to a partial refund proportionate to the digital content supplied during the renewal period before cancellation.
Extension of the cooling-off period
If a trader is in breach of the requirement to inform a consumer about their cooling-off rights, the cooling-off period extends to 14 days after the trader corrects their breach, up to a maximum of 12 months after the original end date.
Ancillary contracts and mixed contracts
We will legislate so that if the main subscription contract is cancelled, ancillary contracts are treated in the same was as they are under the existing Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
Contractual terms and auto-renewal
We will legislate to prevent contractual terms that make it disproportionately difficult for consumers to stop a subscription from auto-renewing.
Cancellation remedies for breach of duties
If traders breach statutory obligations, such as failing to send reminder notices, consumers will have clear rights to appropriate refunds. We will also introduce a list of specific breaches for which refunds will apply automatically.
Information notices
Consumers must be provided with clear information about their contract and the purpose of communications must be clear. Notices must be provided on a “durable medium” (a format that the consumer can easily access in the future) and important information must be both clear and prominent.
Charitable memberships
We recognise the vital contribution of the UK’s cultural and heritage charities, and the public benefit they provide. In response to concerns raised by the sector, the Government will exclude certain charitable cultural and heritage memberships from the new subscription regime, ensuring they are not subject to additional requirements beyond those that already apply under existing consumer law. Broadly this will exclude contracts which are between a charity and a consumer and that allow consumers to attend performances, see collections, or visit places—for example, museums, galleries, historical properties, landscapes, wildlife, performing arts—which are related to their charitable purpose.
Next steps
This new framework will empower consumers with clearer rights, fairer terms, and easier ways to manage their subscriptions. It will also support competition and growth by ensuring businesses operate on a level playing field with strong, trusted consumer protections at its core. Under the new regime, consumers will benefit from:
Clear, tailored information before they sign up to a subscription.
Reminders before a trial period ends or a 12 months-plus contract auto-renews.
Easy, straightforward cancellation routes, including online cancellation if consumers can sign up online.
A new renewal cooling-off period, allowing consumers to exit a contract within 14 days of a trial or a contract renewing for longer than 12 months-plus if they change their mind.
In a world where an increasing numbers of goods and services are sold using subscriptions, these measures will protect consumers from being trapped in unwanted subscription contracts and be better able to control how and where they spend their money. Together the measures are anticipated to provide £400 million of consumer benefits per year.
The Government will bring forward secondary legislation covering the above, when parliamentary time allows, and we expect the regime to commence in spring 2027. We will also publish guidance to support implementation.
I am placing a copy of the Government response to the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1498]
Call for Input: New Powers to Protect UK from Acts of Adverse Economic Pressure
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
As an open trading nation, the UK thrives on its connections with the world. International trade fuels economic growth in the UK, and delivers significant benefits for businesses, workers and consumers alike. However, rising geopolitical tensions and growing uncertainty are reshaping global trade dynamics. Unfair trading practices are emerging that disrupt supply chains and distort competition, sometimes aimed at forcing changes in law or policy.
When supply chains are disrupted, it is working people who feel it first—in higher prices at the checkout, in uncertainty about their jobs, and in the disruption to the businesses and industries their communities depend on.
That is why we recognised these risks in our Trade Strategy, published last year. We are already taking action to make our economy more resilient and secure, and we work closely with allies through the G7, the World Trade Organisation and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership to challenge unfair practices wherever they occur. Now we are asking whether additional powers are needed, and on Thursday 9 April we launched a call for input to consider the case for developing new powers to reinforce our ability to respond to acts of adverse economic pressure against the UK.
We are seeking to understand whether the UK Government should strengthen the UK’s economic security and resilience against acts of adverse economic pressure, and if so how, while supporting growth, competitiveness, and our international obligations. This call for input will be open for 10 weeks and will aim to gather views from a broad range of stakeholders on the opportunities, risks, and implementation considerations associated with taking new powers. This includes perspectives from businesses, industry, consumer organisations, other representative and sector bodies, as well as insights from think-tanks, academics, the devolved Governments, Crown dependencies, and overseas territories.
We welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recent inquiry into economic security and their agreement that the Government should explore new powers in this area.
To support this, my Department has published a summary of the Government’s existing powers in this area and set out the case for considering new powers, including what form such powers could take. A copy of the call for input document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.
This is about one thing: protecting working people from economic shocks they did nothing to cause. If new powers are required, we will introduce them. We will always try diplomacy first. But if that fails, families, businesses, and communities across the UK deserve to know that their Government have the tools to stand up for them. We are not changing who we are as a trading nation; we are making sure we can stay who we are, even when others play by different rules. This is what this call for input is about, and that is how we deliver growth that works for everyone.
[HCWS1491]
Our Place to Give: Growing Place-based Philanthropy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today the Government launch Our Place to Give: a plan for growing place-based philanthropy. This sets out the first steps we will take towards achieving our vision of building ambitious and long-term partnerships with philanthropists and delivering tangible and lasting impact within our communities.
This Government are focused on delivering a decade of national renewal, and we cannot achieve this change alone. A partnership model that adequately recognises the potential of philanthropy to drive positive social impact across the breadth of the UK is essential to address some of our biggest challenges.
The UK has a proud history of philanthropy, which is an integral part of the glue that binds communities together. Whether it is the donation of wealth, time, or talent, giving back creates a sense of pride and belonging.
Change starts with partnership and Our Place to Give sets out how the Government will work with local government, civil society and philanthropists to address barriers and strengthen place-based philanthropy. We are focused on two key outcomes:
For places: helping local organisations and areas with the greatest funding needs better access philanthropic investment.
For philanthropists: encouraging more high net-worth individuals to give back to communities, by making it easier to work with Government and places on opportunities to maximise place-based funding.
This represents a fundamental shift and a genuinely new approach to working together and forms one part of the Government’s impact economy agenda. We will work to foster an environment of mutual respect and trust, ensuring philanthropic voices are brought into the early stages of policy design and implementation, utilising their expertise, insight and experience to tackle some of the most pressing and challenging societal issues across this country. This includes partnering on Government priorities, including the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme and the £500 million better futures fund.
This Government want to empower philanthropists and communities to do more together. MPs are uniquely placed to champion local priorities and a toolkit has been developed to support with practical steps on how to engage with place-based philanthropy in their constituency.
The UK is one of the best countries in the world to conduct philanthropy, and we are committed to working with philanthropists and communities to drive sustained positive change across the country.
[HCWS1500]
Further Education College Condition Allocation 2026-27
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I am pleased to announce £307 million of capital funding will be allocated to further education colleges and designated institutions across England in 2026-27 to help them maintain, improve, and ensure the suitability of their estate. This is the second year of the FE college condition allocation, providing colleges with funding certainty to strategically plan and manage their estates.
FE colleges will have the discretion to prioritise how best to use this funding over a three year period, supported by spend guidance the Department has published on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-education-college-condition-allocation-2026-to-2027
This funding forms part of the £1.7 billion investment announced in the UK’s modern industrial strategy to improve the condition of FE college buildings. It is also part of the Government’s education estates strategy, published in February 2026, which set out plans for an education estate that supports opportunity for all, backed by a 10-year plan to deliver a decade of renewal to transform schools and colleges. High quality and inspiring college buildings are essential for expanding opportunity, breaking down barriers, and ensuring clear pathways from education into skilled employment.
By investing in FE colleges, we are investing in the country’s future workforce and long-term growth.
[HCWS1495]
Improving School Food Standards in England: Consultation Launch
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I have asked my Department to consult on proposed changes to the school food standards in England.
A good meal or a nutritious breakfast can set a child up for the day, helping them to concentrate, learn, and thrive. Working alongside the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities and as part of our 10-year health plan for England, we have committed to overhaul school food standards to ensure that every child gets the good-quality food they need that gives them the best start in life.
Too many children are not getting the nutritious food they need. The latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey shows children consume twice the recommended amount of free sugars, and most are consuming insufficient fibre. Over 10.5% of children aged 4 to 5 start school with obesity and by the end of primary school this rises to 22.2%. This is simply not good enough.
The school food standards are out of date, and that is why we are proposing to update the regulations to align with the latest nutritional guidance to reduce sugar, increase fibre and limit unhealthy foods. These are changes that respond directly to what parents, health experts, and the food sector have been telling us for years. It means increasing fibre by ensuring schools offer more wholegrains, vegetables, pulses and fruit across meals and snacks. It means reducing sugar by limiting sweetened breakfast items, desserts and drinks, and by lowering the added sugar content of everyday menu options. It means restricting foods that are higher in fat, sugar and salt, such as deep-fried items, processed meats, confectionery and savoury snacks, and ensuring these appear less often or in controlled portions. It also means doing this in a way that schools can continue to serve food that children are familiar with. For secondary schools, we propose phasing in some of these changes to give schools and caterers more time to adapt.
Improving nutritional quality must go hand in hand with ensuring that children and young people enjoy the food they are served. Our objective is not only to make school meals healthier, but to ensure they are appealing, familiar and fulfilling, so that healthier choices are enjoyed. Children’s voices will be central to this consultation. We want to hear directly from children and young people on how healthier meals can best meet their needs. To support this, the Department is working with youth organisations and representative bodies to ensure that children are engaged in age-appropriate and inclusive ways.
Schools must comply with the school food standards to make sure that children get the healthy meals they deserve, and we know that governing bodies play a central role in shaping the quality and nutritional value of school meals. These updated standards are not about making that job harder; they are about giving the whole school-food community a clear, modem framework to work to, with the support needed to make it happen. We recognise the importance of clear, nationally consistent arrangements for supporting and assuring compliance with the school food standards and are developing our wider approach. To underpin this broader compliance framework, we are setting out two targeted proposals to reinforce leadership and visibility in schools. We are proposing schools appoint a lead governor for school food and publish their food policies and menus online, which would strengthen accountability and improve compliance. Throughout this entire process, we will continue working closely with schools to identify the guidance they need to meet higher standards. We will also work alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as it develops a new food strategy to ensure the food on children’s plates is good quality, accessible and affordable.
These proposals apply to England only and the consultation will run for nine weeks, closing on 12 June 2026. The consultation and the Government response will be published on www.gov.uk. We will also place a copy of the Government response in the Library of each House.
A consultation will allow the Department to capture and consider a wide range of views, about how our proposals to change policy are likely to impact schools, local authorities, parents, children, and young people. We will consider all responses to the consultation and use them to inform our proposals for better meeting the policy objectives of state funded schools.
[HCWS1494]
Student Loan Interest Rates: Academic Year 2026-27
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
On the 7 April the Government announced that we are capping the maximum interest rates on Plan 2 and Plan 3—postgraduate—student loans at 6% for the 2026-27 academic year, from the 1 September 2026 to the 31 August 2027.
This short-term protective measure removes the risk of any temporary increase in inflation causing loan balances to compound at an unsustainable rate, and will protect students and graduates from the potential of inflationary pressures due to the situation in the middle east.
Student loan interest rates are ordinarily set for each academic year by reference to the retail prices index value for the year to the preceding March. On that basis, interest rates for academic year 2026-27 would normally be determined using the outturn RPI figure for March 2026, which is due to be published on 22 April 2026.
The Government are therefore making this change ahead of student loan interest rates being confirmed for the coming 2026-27 academic year.
Under existing arrangements, borrowers on Plan 2 loans may be charged interest of up to RPI plus 3%. This maximum rate applies to borrowers in repayment earning above the upper interest rate threshold, which increased to £52,885 on 6 April 2026. For Plan 3 loans and Plan 2 students in study, a flat rate of RPI plus 3% applies to all borrowers.
Capping the maximum interest rate at 6% instead of RPI plus 3% will ensure no Plan 2 or Plan 3 borrower faces an interest rate above 6% for academic year 2026-27.
This follows changes this Government have already made to the student finance system we inherited to improve it and make it fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers. This includes increasing the repayment threshold for Plan 2 loans to £28,470 in April 2025—its first increase since 2021—and we increased it again on 6 April this year, to £29,385. We are also reintroducing targeted, means-tested maintenance grants from the 2028-29 academic year, providing students from low-income households with up to £1,000 extra support that will not need to be repaid to ensure those from the poorest families receive more support without increasing their debt.
The Government are continuing work to make the student finance system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers.
[HCWS1489]
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today, I am announcing the formal commencement of the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.
The setting-up date of the inquiry, as per section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005, is 13 April 2026.
The inquiry will confront one of the darkest periods in our country’s history, where the most vulnerable people were abused and let down by those meant to protect them. I am committed to delivering the truth, accountability and reform that victims and survivors deserve and expect.
On 9 December 2025, I updated the House on the publication of the draft terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs. Given the importance of getting this right, I asked the chair and panel of the inquiry to undertake a period of consultation, including with victims and survivors of these crimes, before returning their views to me for agreement on the final terms of reference.
The final terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs were published on gov.uk on Tuesday 31 March. This upheld our previous commitment to agree terms of reference by the end of March. The interval between publication and formal commencement reflects the timing of parliamentary recess.
The terms were agreed with the chair and panel following a period of consultation. This included an online open consultation, which received over 25,000 responses, direct engagement with victims and survivors across England and Wales and engagement with parliamentarians. I would like to place on record my thanks to the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Anne Longfield CBE, and the panel, Zoë Billingham CBE and Eleanor Kelly CBE, for their work in leading this consultation.
The terms of reference have been shaped by the testimony, priorities and lived experience of victims and survivors and make clear that their experiences will continue to guide the inquiry’s work throughout. I would like to pay tribute to their involvement and tireless campaigning to ensure we right the wrongs of the past and ensure evil perpetrators of these crimes have nowhere to hide.
The inquiry is time-limited for three years, supported by a £65 million budget, to help ensure that justice is delivered swiftly for those who have already waited too long for answers. Its initial phase will focus on identifying priority areas for investigation, before undertaking targeted local investigations alongside a national-level review of the findings of those investigations. The criteria used to select local areas will be published by the inquiry within three months of the formal setting-up date.
The inquiry will examine systemic, institutional and individual failures, making recommendations for improvement at both national and local levels, as appropriate. The inquiry will be laser focused on grooming gangs and will explicitly examine the role ethnicity, religion and culture played in these crimes. It will seek to hold individuals, institutions and statutory services responsible to account for any failures.
With a national remit across England and Wales, the inquiry will work closely with the national police operation into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, Operation Beaconport, overseen by the National Crime Agency. As set out in the terms of reference, where criminal allegations and evidence are identified by the inquiry, this will be referred to law enforcement.
The Government accepted all 12 recommendations in Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Government remain fully committed to implementing these recommendations and to driving forward broader action to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The Government are clear that this inquiry must deliver truth, accountability, and meaningful reform so that the injustices suffered by victims and survivors are not repeated and children are better protected in every community in future.
I recognise the long-standing interest from parliamentarians in this work. The inquiry has committed to publishing their findings regularly and I remain committed to keeping Parliament informed as the inquiry progresses.
[HCWS1492]
FIFA Men’s Football World Cup 2026: Licensing Hours
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Late last year the Government consulted on proposals to make a contingent licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 for the 2026 FIFA men’s football world cup. The majority of respondents were in favour of licensing hours being relaxed for the semi-final and final stages of the tournament, with some calling on us to go further and extend hours for games in the earlier rounds of the tournament.
Having considered the consultation responses, the Government intend to proceed with a contingent licensing hours order for England and Wales to enable communities to come together at their local licensed premises to support the home nations—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—where they progress past the group stages of the tournament.
The Government have already announced a contingent order that will apply if any of the home nations reach the rounds of 32 and 16 as for the quarter finals, semi-finals and finals for matches that kick off between 8 pm and 10 pm UK time.
Having considered this further, I now wish to announce that we will also extend for round of 32 and round of 16 matches that kick off at 5 pm and 6 pm. For these matches licensing hours will be extended until 1 am the following morning, rather than 11 pm on the day of the match, allowing more time for fans to do post-match analysis and hopefully celebrate a great victory for a home nation. The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11 pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales, and will only come into effect should a home nation play in the matches.
This order will enable communities to come together to collectively support the home nations teams and celebrate their success, while also providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector at this challenging time. The order will be laid in Parliament in due course and an economic note will be published alongside it on legislation.gov.uk.
[HCWS1493]
Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 Report and Phase 2 Terms of Reference
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 7 April 2025, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department announced the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, to be chaired by the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford. This inquiry was to examine the appalling events that took place at a children’s dance class in Southport on 29 July 2024.
Three young girls were tragically murdered on that day, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and many more were seriously harmed. Our thoughts remain with the families who have suffered such devastating loss, as well as those who survived the attack but live with the lasting physical and psychological impact.
The chair has today published his findings from the first phase of this inquiry, which provides a detailed account of the events leading up to the attack, and the attack itself. The inquiry examined the perpetrator’s history and interactions with a range of state systems including policing and criminal justice, education, health and social care, as well as considering the account of all those who were impacted by the attack.
The findings point to missed opportunities which could have stopped this attack from occurring. They indicate systematic failures, structural gaps, and a lack of ownership of the risk from the many agencies involved. The inquiry also highlights how agencies failed to adequately share information and take all the facts about the risk the perpetrator posed to the community into consideration, which ultimately meant that his risk was not managed effectively.
Sir Adrian has examined these issues thoroughly, and I welcome his recommendations. The Government are determined to learn the lessons identified by the inquiry and to take the necessary action to reduce the risk of such an attack happening again. I must thank the chair, his team, and all those that took part in the inquiry, for the speed, rigour and professionalism with which they have conducted their work.
The Government will consider the report and its recommendations and will respond in full later this summer. Alongside this, the Government will respond to the recommendations made by the Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson KC, in his “Lessons for Prevent” report, which examined Prevent’s role in the Southport attack and the murder of Sir David Amess.
While the first phase of the inquiry has looked specifically at the failings in this case, it has identified wider gaps in how to address the risk from individuals who hold a fascination with extreme violence. Following consultation with the chair and those most affected by this attack, I am today publishing the terms of reference for the second phase of the Southport inquiry.
I have asked the chair in phase 2 to examine the adequacy of arrangements for identifying and managing the risk posed by individuals who are fixated with extreme violence. The inquiry will consider the role of multi-agency management, the interventions needed to reduce risk to the public, the effectiveness of laws around knives and weapons, and the extent to which the internet and social media are influencing and enabling people to carry out violent attacks.
This next phase of the inquiry will begin immediately and is expected to report in spring 2027. A copy of the terms of reference for phase 2 of the Southport inquiry will be placed in the Library of each House.
The Government will provide the inquiry with the resources it needs to complete this next phase and will fully support the chair in the discharge of his duties. We will continue to engage with those affected by the events in Southport, to ensure that their questions are answered, and their views are heard, as this next stage commences.
[HCWS1497]
UK-US Arrangement on Pharmaceuticals Pricing and Tariffs
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Vallance of Balham.
Today I can update the House that the UK and US Governments have published the joint text of our arrangement on pharmaceuticals pricing and tariffs. This builds on the general terms for the UK-US economic prosperity deal announced in May 2025 and takes forward joint commitments made when the principles of the partnership were first announced in December 2025. The arrangement will improve the lives of NHS patients, support our life sciences sector and grow the economy.
Central to the partnership are the actions the Government are taking to improve and protect UK patient access to new and important medicines. More NHS patients will get improved access to life-changing new treatments because of the medicines pricing changes we have made, and the associated UK medicines spend targets set out in the arrangement. Investing in medicines helps keep people healthier for longer, reduces pressure on the health service over the longer term, and ensures that we have an NHS that is fit for the future.
The update to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold, made for the first time in two decades, has already made a direct difference for NHS patients. Two medicines have already been recommended by NICE under the new threshold, giving patients immediate access to life-changing medicines—including a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12 and a last-resort treatment for patients with a rare form of stomach cancer who had already exhausted other options. NHS patients in England will be able to access these through the health service, thanks to the new thresholds.
In addition, the arrangement includes clarification of the US commitments on its “most favoured nation” pricing policy and support for UK patient access, including outlining expectations from the US Government that companies will continue to launch new medicines quickly in the UK.
The partnership supports our life sciences sector, which not only saves lives but creates jobs, drives investment and powers innovation across our economy. UK pharmaceuticals exports to the US—worth over £5 billion in 2024—will be subject to no additional US tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years. This includes avoiding section 232 tariffs on patented pharmaceuticals of up to 100% announced by the US on Thursday 2 April. This makes the UK the first and only country to benefit from a commitment to tariff-free access to the US pharmaceuticals market, providing certainty for UK exporters, and giving the UK sector a significant competitive advantage over other trading partners. This supports economic growth and helps protect our vital pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, which in 2025 added £28.5 billion to the UK economy, employed over 50,000 people in high-skilled jobs across the country, and exported almost £21 billion in pharmaceutical products worldwide.
We have also achieved preferential terms for medical technology exports, which will be subject to no additional tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years—protecting over 195,000 UK jobs in the med-tech sector. The UK and US have also agreed to work together towards mutual recognition of medical device approvals—cutting red tape and supporting future innovative health technologies to reach patients on both sides of the Atlantic.
The partnership has received widespread support from the life sciences sector and will lead to greater investment in UK life sciences. It has already started generating results, such as £500 million investment in UK research and development and manufacturing in Surrey from the global biopharmaceutical company UCB, which was announced in January.
We will continue to work closely with the life sciences sector to help land investment into the UK, and deliver on our ambition for the UK to become the third most important life sciences economy by 2035, as set out in our life sciences sector plan.
The finalising of this arrangement does not introduce any further costs for HM Government beyond those set out previously. The Government will continue to assess the costs and benefits of this arrangement.
[HCWS1487]
Independent Review of Carer’s Allowance Overpayments: Progress on Response
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Government published the report of the Independent Review of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance linked to earnings, and the Government’s response to its recommendations, on 25 November 2025—the review can be found on gov.uk. Today I am providing an update on progress in responding to those recommendations, including more detail on our plans to reassess cases that may have been subject to faulty guidance on the averaging of fluctuating earnings.
The Government inherited a system where some busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with unexpected debts due to overpayments of carer’s allowance. The independent review, undertaken by Liz Sayce, showed that mistakes were made, and we are determined to put them right. We welcomed the report and accepted, or partially accepted, 38 of the 40 recommendations. We have already made around half of the changes that the report recommended. Work has begun on the others, but some changes will take more time to put in place.
As part of their response, the Government committed to reassessing carer’s allowance cases that may have been affected by faulty guidance on the averaging of irregularly fluctuating earnings. This guidance, which was in place between April 2015 and September 2025, did not accurately reflect the statutory position. I am pleased to announce that the reassessment exercise will begin today, 13 April 2026. Funding of £75 million has been provided for the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29.
The Department for Work and Pensions expects to review over 200,000 cases, potentially reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for around 25,000 carers.
For the vast majority of cases, the Department has all the information it needs to reassess the case, so there will be no need for most people to do anything. The Department will contact them by SMS and letter if it needs any further information in order to conduct the reassessment.
For other, older cases, the Department may no longer hold information because GDPR rules state that personal data must be kept only for as long as necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. For these cases, the Department will open access to a straightforward online form for people to complete. We aim to do this in late 2026, building on learned lessons from the reassessment of cases for which we already hold the relevant data. The Department will work with organisations supporting carers to encourage people who think they may have been affected to register via the online form for a reassessment.
We will also let people know once their cases have been reassessed and whether any overpayment has been reduced as a result of the reassessment.
Although the independent review covered England and Wales, at the request of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, the reassessment exercise will include relevant carer’s allowance cases in Scotland, including those that were administered by the Department on behalf of Scottish Ministers between September 2018 and September 2025.
Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is or might be involved in the reassessment exercise will be available—at no cost—from the Department or from trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust.
The Department has committed to update the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee every six months on progress in the implementation of the Government’s response to the independent review. This will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. Information will also be included in the Department’s annual report and accounts.
[HCWS1488]