Westminster Hall
Wednesday 28th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 12 hours, 54 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Considered higher education funding, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. As co-chair of the Appg for students and international students, a member of the Appg for universities and representing a constituency with one of the largest concentrations of students, I know firsthand the enormous value of higher education and the growing challenges facing the sector. It's worth saying from the outset that I'm applying for a separate backbench debate, specifically on students covering the cost of living, maintenance support and the wider student experience. Those are important issues in their own right, but today's debate focuses on the foundations and the long term sustainability of higher education itself.
My constituency is home to two outstanding universities , the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. I have had the privilege of studying at both institutions and like many people I know personally, the doors that higher education can open and the horizons it can broaden. We have a world class higher education system whose institutions are often seen as a great equalizer, especially for working class communities. Walking into a university, you know right away why they are described as centres of innovation and industry. A good university acts as an anchor in our cities far more than just lecture halls and graduation ceremonies.
I will give way.
My constituency is home to two outstanding universities , the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. I have had the privilege of studying at both institutions and like many people I know personally, the doors that higher education can open and the horizons it can broaden. We have a world class higher education system whose institutions are often seen as a great equalizer, especially for working class communities. Walking into a university, you know right away why they are described as centres of innovation and industry. A good university acts as an anchor in our cities far more than just lecture halls and graduation ceremonies.
I will give way.
09:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The member for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. Just on the issue of providing opportunities, particularly for working class communities. Would you agree with me that in my area, the likes of regional colleges, both in the North Coast and the northwest, offer excellent opportunities, particularly for people who feel disadvantaged and possibly have left school without any qualifications and are really caught in a bind. And this offers them a way out of the position they're in and offers prospects for the future for jobs.
09:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I agree with the honourable member. I think he makes an excellent point, and I will come on to talking about disadvantaged students and the role that universities play. Universities train the nurses and doctors who treat us. They train the teachers who educate our children, the engineers who build our infrastructure, and the researchers who discoveries save lives. They support businesses, attract investment, create jobs and drive progress. In Sheffield, we see that contribution every day. Sheffield Hallam University trains around 3900 healthcare professionals and 2800 teachers every year in a single academic year, those healthcare students contributed more than 365,000 hours through NHS clinical placements.
Meanwhile, the University of Sheffield generates an estimated £4.82 billion for the UK economy and supports 138 start ups and spin outs. Its research activity contributes billions more in economic value, and whilst these figures are impressive. Behind them lies a fracture point. There is a growing disconnect between what we ask our universities to deliver and the resources that are available. We want universities to drive growth to boost productivity. We want them to tackle regional inequality. We want them to undertake world leading research. We want them to support the NHS, public services and local and local economies.
But yet the sector is facing a financial crisis that threatens its very survival. Madam chair, we have to recognise the failed funding experiment of the last 16 years and bring it to an end. I draw colleagues attention to the Education Committee's comprehensive report from earlier this year, identifying the real terms cut in undergraduate tuition fees as a huge factor. The one of many in financial instability. It is also widely recognised that the UK's public education funding levels rank well below the OECD average of around 70%. Funding levels have fallen so far that funding direct universities now just makes up 2 billion out of a total of 16 billion.
The complete inverse of what it used to be. The majority of government funding is spent on a bloated student loan system that is wildly out of control, while current repayment threshold freezes are punishing lower earning graduates. And last year, the office for students forecast that up to 40% of higher education providers will be in deficit. Put simply, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books.
I'll give way to.
Meanwhile, the University of Sheffield generates an estimated £4.82 billion for the UK economy and supports 138 start ups and spin outs. Its research activity contributes billions more in economic value, and whilst these figures are impressive. Behind them lies a fracture point. There is a growing disconnect between what we ask our universities to deliver and the resources that are available. We want universities to drive growth to boost productivity. We want them to tackle regional inequality. We want them to undertake world leading research. We want them to support the NHS, public services and local and local economies.
But yet the sector is facing a financial crisis that threatens its very survival. Madam chair, we have to recognise the failed funding experiment of the last 16 years and bring it to an end. I draw colleagues attention to the Education Committee's comprehensive report from earlier this year, identifying the real terms cut in undergraduate tuition fees as a huge factor. The one of many in financial instability. It is also widely recognised that the UK's public education funding levels rank well below the OECD average of around 70%. Funding levels have fallen so far that funding direct universities now just makes up 2 billion out of a total of 16 billion.
The complete inverse of what it used to be. The majority of government funding is spent on a bloated student loan system that is wildly out of control, while current repayment threshold freezes are punishing lower earning graduates. And last year, the office for students forecast that up to 40% of higher education providers will be in deficit. Put simply, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books.
I'll give way to.
09:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much for giving way. She'll be aware about there being around 600 job cuts in Nottingham at the University of Nottingham. There's been alternative proposals brought forward 120 in total by staff, but the impact is going to be significant. What's been noticeable in my conversations with the university is the emphasis on commercial elements, whether that's covenants, whether that's 30 days access to cash, whether that's access to a roving revolving credit facility. Does she agree with me that that emphasis has gone too far, and we've forgotten what the public benefit of universities is, and the government and the universities need to reflect on that.
09:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I agree with my hon. Friend, and he makes an excellent point. I think Nottingham University is seen as a university that does need the support, and I think, you know, colleagues across the sector will look to see how Nottingham is supported alongside their own universities. He makes an excellent point. Put simply, far too many institutions now are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books. Over recent months, I've spoken to university leaders, staff, trade union representatives, including the UCU students and employers. And whilst they all come from very different perspectives, they all present a common diagnosis.
The current funding model for higher education does not work. And so it raises a fundamental question if we recognise universities as national assets, as our rhetoric often does, why have we systematically stripped back public funding and left them to shoulder so much of the financial burden themselves? I will give way.
The current funding model for higher education does not work. And so it raises a fundamental question if we recognise universities as national assets, as our rhetoric often does, why have we systematically stripped back public funding and left them to shoulder so much of the financial burden themselves? I will give way.
09:36
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Member, for giving way and for setting out just the real challenges that are higher education institutions face. I wondered if she would agree with me that this difficult financial position they're in is actually causing universities to oversubscribe their courses, putting unsustainable pressures on their workforce, reducing the student experience, but also increasing that financial instability as a result of that boom and bust.
09:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I think universities do need to be supported so that the financial pressures, the financial burden, is not purely left for them to deal with. Madam chair, I now want to come on to international students. International students should be welcomed as an enrichment of our campuses and strengtheners of British Britain's international ties, their fee income, international students fee income has become an essential pillar, propping up our universities Cross-subsidising home students education and supporting research that would otherwise be cut. But universities did not become dependent on international fee income by choice.
They have increasingly relied upon it because domestic teaching and research funding has failed to keep pace with the real costs of delivery. I, and many others remain concerned about using an international student levy to pay for maintenance grants. It's seen as little more than an additional tax on one of the UK's most successful exports. At a time when global competition for talent is increasing, we should be asking how are we strengthening one of Britain's greatest success stories, not how we make it less attractive. A restructured maintenance support system for home students, separate from international fee income, would be a vastly more successful policy, and it's a policy I will continue to support fundamentally, any solution to the sector's funding crisis , and support for the most disadvantaged home students should not further destabilize university finances, and this is especially important in a context where universities are already cutting staff courses and research programmes.
Data from universities UK shows nearly 8 in 10 universities have have pursued voluntary redundancies in the last three years, and the same amount have frozen recruitment. UCU estimates that 30,000 jobs have been lost over the last three years. This is devastating and we should be clear about what this actually means. It means rising workloads and pay erosion. Remaining staff. It means staff who support students every day losing their livelihoods in Sheffield, Hallam, Sheffield Hallam University's case, more than 1200 posts have been have gone in just over two years, having met with staff representatives in UC UCU members.
I know that these numbers are not abstract. They represent people who have got mortgages to pay, families to support and bills to meet. I also hear from many talented academics who are moving from one short term arrangement to another, with little certainty about their future. The consequences are felt by individuals and the community beyond the university gates, but it also has implications for the future of Britain's British research, a system increasingly characterised by insecurity will only drive talented people away. So if universities are one of the UK's greatest assets, then why are they not involved in our economic growth?
Because whilst we speak of growth skills and Britain's future competitiveness, we are not seeing growing financial sorry. We are seeing growing financial fragility across the very institutions that help make those ambitions possible. Universities cannot continue to be expected to do more with less chasing efficiencies and instead eroding capacity. And once that capacity is lost, rebuilding it is neither quick nor easy. So I'd like to put a number of questions to the minister today. First, what is the government's long term vision for higher education? Not simply how individual institutions survive the next financial year, but how will universities fit into a national strategy for growth skills research and regional development?
Secondly, does the Minister recognise that the current funding model has become overly reliant on international student income, mainly because teaching and research funding no longer meets the real cost that universities face. And if the government continues the international student levy, what real impact will it undertake on how fluctuations in student recruitment will affect university finances? For example, does the minister recognise that the institutions are likely to pass these costs on through higher fees, potentially making the UK a less attractive destination in the international student market? Thirdly, does the Minister believe that the current balance between public and private contributions to higher education funding is sustainable?
The government now contributes around £0.16 for every pound spent on teaching. Does the minister believe that that is a viable basis for the future funding of higher education? Will the government examine how, over the long term, we move towards a fairer balance between individual, between the individual and state contributions, recognising the enormous public benefit that universities provide? Fourthly, how is the government assessing the economic impact of university job losses? Because we cannot talk about universities as regional anchors, whilst simultaneously accepting the loss of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the sector? And finally, where do universities sit within the universities?
Sorry, within the government's growth mission? Because if universities are, as we say, the engines of growth, then they should be treated as such. And they need a funding framework that recognises the enormous contributions they make to our economy, our public services and our communities. I want young people in Sheffield to have the same opportunities that education gave me. I want our universities to continue training the nurses, the teachers, the engineers and researchers our country desperately needs. But I want Britain to remain a world leader in higher education and research and research. If we want our institutions to survive at all, we've got to stop treating them as an afterthought.
Thank you.
They have increasingly relied upon it because domestic teaching and research funding has failed to keep pace with the real costs of delivery. I, and many others remain concerned about using an international student levy to pay for maintenance grants. It's seen as little more than an additional tax on one of the UK's most successful exports. At a time when global competition for talent is increasing, we should be asking how are we strengthening one of Britain's greatest success stories, not how we make it less attractive. A restructured maintenance support system for home students, separate from international fee income, would be a vastly more successful policy, and it's a policy I will continue to support fundamentally, any solution to the sector's funding crisis , and support for the most disadvantaged home students should not further destabilize university finances, and this is especially important in a context where universities are already cutting staff courses and research programmes.
Data from universities UK shows nearly 8 in 10 universities have have pursued voluntary redundancies in the last three years, and the same amount have frozen recruitment. UCU estimates that 30,000 jobs have been lost over the last three years. This is devastating and we should be clear about what this actually means. It means rising workloads and pay erosion. Remaining staff. It means staff who support students every day losing their livelihoods in Sheffield, Hallam, Sheffield Hallam University's case, more than 1200 posts have been have gone in just over two years, having met with staff representatives in UC UCU members.
I know that these numbers are not abstract. They represent people who have got mortgages to pay, families to support and bills to meet. I also hear from many talented academics who are moving from one short term arrangement to another, with little certainty about their future. The consequences are felt by individuals and the community beyond the university gates, but it also has implications for the future of Britain's British research, a system increasingly characterised by insecurity will only drive talented people away. So if universities are one of the UK's greatest assets, then why are they not involved in our economic growth?
Because whilst we speak of growth skills and Britain's future competitiveness, we are not seeing growing financial sorry. We are seeing growing financial fragility across the very institutions that help make those ambitions possible. Universities cannot continue to be expected to do more with less chasing efficiencies and instead eroding capacity. And once that capacity is lost, rebuilding it is neither quick nor easy. So I'd like to put a number of questions to the minister today. First, what is the government's long term vision for higher education? Not simply how individual institutions survive the next financial year, but how will universities fit into a national strategy for growth skills research and regional development?
Secondly, does the Minister recognise that the current funding model has become overly reliant on international student income, mainly because teaching and research funding no longer meets the real cost that universities face. And if the government continues the international student levy, what real impact will it undertake on how fluctuations in student recruitment will affect university finances? For example, does the minister recognise that the institutions are likely to pass these costs on through higher fees, potentially making the UK a less attractive destination in the international student market? Thirdly, does the Minister believe that the current balance between public and private contributions to higher education funding is sustainable?
The government now contributes around £0.16 for every pound spent on teaching. Does the minister believe that that is a viable basis for the future funding of higher education? Will the government examine how, over the long term, we move towards a fairer balance between individual, between the individual and state contributions, recognising the enormous public benefit that universities provide? Fourthly, how is the government assessing the economic impact of university job losses? Because we cannot talk about universities as regional anchors, whilst simultaneously accepting the loss of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the sector? And finally, where do universities sit within the universities?
Sorry, within the government's growth mission? Because if universities are, as we say, the engines of growth, then they should be treated as such. And they need a funding framework that recognises the enormous contributions they make to our economy, our public services and our communities. I want young people in Sheffield to have the same opportunities that education gave me. I want our universities to continue training the nurses, the teachers, the engineers and researchers our country desperately needs. But I want Britain to remain a world leader in higher education and research and research. If we want our institutions to survive at all, we've got to stop treating them as an afterthought.
Thank you.
09:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. Could members please remain standing so that the clerk can make a note of how many members wish to speak? And given the numbers, I think I'm going to have to impose a hard time limit of four minutes. So the question is that this House has considered higher education funding. Doctor Rupa Huq.
09:42
09:42
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And world beating, both overused terms and both apply to UK H which after overreliance on international fee income during years of underfunding, now feels ready to snap . 4 in 10 of the best universities on earth are in Britain . Imperial College, its White City campuses. In my seat is one. It attracts the brightest brains for groundbreaking post-doctoral research. Its scale space facility incubates startups, but Home Office restrictions on dependence the cutting of the Post-study work visa, ILR changes, and the new basic compliance assessment that's inexplicably resulted in record visa refusals has has threatened all this. And in a competitive world, there are other options for international purposes, which we see are being opted for.
I'm also MP for University of West London, not top ten but an anchor institution locally. Big employer, vital hub for underrepresented communities. Both are concerned by the international student levy. Yes, the return of maintenance grants, which is what the proceeds will fund, are welcome. But really the £925 fee universities must produce per international student, per year of study that they're enrolled at a time of falling rolls is unreliable. Why not? Given how course fees vary, a percentage 6% was originally mooted. And what's the logic of the first 250 students free? Sadly, Suffolk University for the first time has gone below that.
An unwanted situation and perverse disincentive. Could we not increase this number and why are the subjects funded in these grants only the ones in the government's industrial strategy, computing, maths, pure science, but no arts or social sciences which will potentially leave these to elites. Indeed, creative sector education e.g. at UW, the old Ealing Arts School, which for 100 years specialised in this and humanities, whether who formed and Freddie Mercury studied, risks being wiped out as the Uk-eu fair along with the jobs . Because such subjects don't fit financial forecasts. Our universities are not simply dreaming spires and ivory towers.
They're essential invisible exports, soft power, regional capacity building growth in every postcode. Westminster, the first polytechnic was founded to enrich the working man. It's Soho Poly venue was where Pink Floyd played their early gigs and things still happen there. We must treasure our wide diversity of institutions, not just throw them to the wall. But the office estimates 119 43% of universities will be in deficit this academic year, with 24 of them in danger of bankruptcy. And after mergers and departmental closures, the next step, as predicted by the Education Select Committee's excellent report, is insolvency. Now, the Oxbridge will go from there to there, but the Suffolk's the UW ls there too down there.
Will it take someone to go bust before the government finally takes notice? When I taught in the sector, international students were seen as the golden goose to compensate for real terms funding cuts. And they spend money locally. But our overreliance is now exposed. The BCA rag ratings have become existential. You can't rely on past laurels cash, starve a sector, demand gullible international students with limitless pockets to prop it up, staff goodwill and magically expect growth.
The elasticity of demand inevitably snaps.
I'm also MP for University of West London, not top ten but an anchor institution locally. Big employer, vital hub for underrepresented communities. Both are concerned by the international student levy. Yes, the return of maintenance grants, which is what the proceeds will fund, are welcome. But really the £925 fee universities must produce per international student, per year of study that they're enrolled at a time of falling rolls is unreliable. Why not? Given how course fees vary, a percentage 6% was originally mooted. And what's the logic of the first 250 students free? Sadly, Suffolk University for the first time has gone below that.
An unwanted situation and perverse disincentive. Could we not increase this number and why are the subjects funded in these grants only the ones in the government's industrial strategy, computing, maths, pure science, but no arts or social sciences which will potentially leave these to elites. Indeed, creative sector education e.g. at UW, the old Ealing Arts School, which for 100 years specialised in this and humanities, whether who formed and Freddie Mercury studied, risks being wiped out as the Uk-eu fair along with the jobs . Because such subjects don't fit financial forecasts. Our universities are not simply dreaming spires and ivory towers.
They're essential invisible exports, soft power, regional capacity building growth in every postcode. Westminster, the first polytechnic was founded to enrich the working man. It's Soho Poly venue was where Pink Floyd played their early gigs and things still happen there. We must treasure our wide diversity of institutions, not just throw them to the wall. But the office estimates 119 43% of universities will be in deficit this academic year, with 24 of them in danger of bankruptcy. And after mergers and departmental closures, the next step, as predicted by the Education Select Committee's excellent report, is insolvency. Now, the Oxbridge will go from there to there, but the Suffolk's the UW ls there too down there.
Will it take someone to go bust before the government finally takes notice? When I taught in the sector, international students were seen as the golden goose to compensate for real terms funding cuts. And they spend money locally. But our overreliance is now exposed. The BCA rag ratings have become existential. You can't rely on past laurels cash, starve a sector, demand gullible international students with limitless pockets to prop it up, staff goodwill and magically expect growth.
The elasticity of demand inevitably snaps.
09:46
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
You're likely to be vulnerable for. For setting the scheme, the the debate incredibly well and thank her for that. Thank her for for having this debate, because having this debate has enabled us also to make a contribution on a subject matter that's incredibly important. So thank you for that. We are looking at a matter of grave, overriding concern for the future of our people, our youth, our economic prosperity in Northern Ireland, the ministers responsibility for Northern Ireland. But I always like to bring a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates, because what's happening here in mainland is happening to us in Northern Ireland as well.
We're standing here debating the broader systemic challenges facing higher education funding across the United Kingdom. Yet, as so often the case, the view from Northern Ireland also reveals a distinct and far more perilous landscape. Good to see the minister in her place. I look forward to ask the Minister at least one question which hopefully the honourable lady will be able to answer. While universities across England and Wales adjusted tuition fee caps from rising to some £10,000, our local institutions remain strictly bound by the Department of the economy. We deliberately keep undergraduate tuition fees lower at £4,750 .
To ensure accessibility for our working class communities. It's important to me as an MP, it's important to our our assembly that we look after those and give opportunity. For all I know, the Labour Party wants to give opportunity for all. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. So I think the the motivation that the has put forward here is something that I wholeheartedly support. Look no further than the devastating crisis currently unfolding at Ulster University. Some 735 members of staff, nearly 24% of our entire workforce, have applied for redundancy. The university is forcing, through a planned reduction of jobs, to plug a catastrophic £25 million deficit.
Dedicated lecturers, researchers, support staff across Belfast, Coleraine and Magee are watching their livelihoods vanish. This is an absolute gutting of our regional skills base. You're cutting away the very fabric of Northern Ireland's future. You're threatening the long promised expansion of the Magee campus in Londonderry. Just as an example of something for the future we're looking at.
We're standing here debating the broader systemic challenges facing higher education funding across the United Kingdom. Yet, as so often the case, the view from Northern Ireland also reveals a distinct and far more perilous landscape. Good to see the minister in her place. I look forward to ask the Minister at least one question which hopefully the honourable lady will be able to answer. While universities across England and Wales adjusted tuition fee caps from rising to some £10,000, our local institutions remain strictly bound by the Department of the economy. We deliberately keep undergraduate tuition fees lower at £4,750 .
To ensure accessibility for our working class communities. It's important to me as an MP, it's important to our our assembly that we look after those and give opportunity. For all I know, the Labour Party wants to give opportunity for all. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. So I think the the motivation that the has put forward here is something that I wholeheartedly support. Look no further than the devastating crisis currently unfolding at Ulster University. Some 735 members of staff, nearly 24% of our entire workforce, have applied for redundancy. The university is forcing, through a planned reduction of jobs, to plug a catastrophic £25 million deficit.
Dedicated lecturers, researchers, support staff across Belfast, Coleraine and Magee are watching their livelihoods vanish. This is an absolute gutting of our regional skills base. You're cutting away the very fabric of Northern Ireland's future. You're threatening the long promised expansion of the Magee campus in Londonderry. Just as an example of something for the future we're looking at.
09:48
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank our friend and colleague for East Londonderry, bringing that forward and backing up practically what he sees on the ground and what I see in the Northern Ireland perspective as well, by by any decision against Magee Campus in Londonderry, you were telling local businesses they're crying out to fix their skills deficit, that the talent simply won't be there. And that's what we've got to look at as well. That worries me greatly, Madam chair, the Province of Ulster University warned just days ago that these consequences are not abstract, nor are they years away. They're not.
They're happening right now, at this very minute as we sit here. It's happening, affecting the student places and long term investment. Once the intellectual capacity is lost to redundancy, it's incredibly difficult to ever build it back up again. Our institutions create value for far beyond our campus walls. So I urge my minister back home and my question to the minister here today, difficult times, and I know the minister at the end will respond to the requests, and that's important that we have a strategy to to to respond. Can I ask the minister please discuss the the policy changes and strategy that the honourable lady is going to produce and government is going to be doing here with the the relevant Minister at the Assembly to ensure that we can move forward with a with a positive future, even though it looks incredibly black at this moment in time.
Unlike England, which boasts well over 100 higher education institutions, Northern Ireland has only two two for our population Queen's University and Ulster University, and a region with only two distinct academic employers. The impending job losses are also University do not simply represent a standard corporate restructuring. They represent a catastrophic hollowing out of nearly half of Northern Ireland's university network. Because academics and researchers have practically nowhere else to turn locally, these cuts create an inevitable brain drain, forcing elite talent to flee across the water to Great Britain while triggering course closures that push local students to follow them.
In conclusion, and very conscious that others want to speak, Madam chair, when one of only two pillars of your higher education framework is forced to cut a quarter of its applicants for redundancy, the structural integrity of the entire region's skills economy faces immediate collapse. That's as serious as Northern Ireland. That's why I seek the minister's help. Thank you.
They're happening right now, at this very minute as we sit here. It's happening, affecting the student places and long term investment. Once the intellectual capacity is lost to redundancy, it's incredibly difficult to ever build it back up again. Our institutions create value for far beyond our campus walls. So I urge my minister back home and my question to the minister here today, difficult times, and I know the minister at the end will respond to the requests, and that's important that we have a strategy to to to respond. Can I ask the minister please discuss the the policy changes and strategy that the honourable lady is going to produce and government is going to be doing here with the the relevant Minister at the Assembly to ensure that we can move forward with a with a positive future, even though it looks incredibly black at this moment in time.
Unlike England, which boasts well over 100 higher education institutions, Northern Ireland has only two two for our population Queen's University and Ulster University, and a region with only two distinct academic employers. The impending job losses are also University do not simply represent a standard corporate restructuring. They represent a catastrophic hollowing out of nearly half of Northern Ireland's university network. Because academics and researchers have practically nowhere else to turn locally, these cuts create an inevitable brain drain, forcing elite talent to flee across the water to Great Britain while triggering course closures that push local students to follow them.
In conclusion, and very conscious that others want to speak, Madam chair, when one of only two pillars of your higher education framework is forced to cut a quarter of its applicants for redundancy, the structural integrity of the entire region's skills economy faces immediate collapse. That's as serious as Northern Ireland. That's why I seek the minister's help. Thank you.
09:51
09:51
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Vaz, it is a pleasure to serve under you today, and I thank the member for Sheffield Central for the way in which she introduced the debate. Sheffield University was actually the first place I visited outside Scotland, and I think the Red deer pub was the first English pub I ever went into, which is right, which is right next to the right, next to university. Before becoming elected to this place, I did work in the university sector for for 20 years in Scotland, and our universities are amongst Scotland's biggest assets, and across the sector there is incredible innovation and each year they attract the very best staff and students from across the world.
I always say that any country which is serious about its economy should be serious about its universities, and it is great to see our Prime Minister having universities at the heart of that triple helix model he talks about so often 18 months in a similar place in this place. I quoted the then president of NUS Scotland, who warned that Scotland's education system was crumbling at that time. I hoped her words would prompt the Scottish Government into action. Sadly, they did not and Scotland's sector has lurched from crisis to crisis. While undergraduate university education in Scotland is free, it is grossly underfunded.
Broadly speaking, the average student fees in Scotland are well over £2,000 less than what universities get in England. That means less money for facilities and less money for the wages of staff. I should say. Actually, as a register of interest. I am a member of UCU and I have an on going connection with Heriot-Watt University, which I should have mentioned at the start, and. So because of these huge stresses, there's industrial action right across the sector in Scotland right now. I think it's six universities. I think industrial action, one university might suggest a local issue, but when you have industrial action right across the country and maybe suggest that the government needs to step up and do something about it.
In my own constituency, both Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot Watt are internationally recognised institutions. They are home to dedicated staff and ambitious students and world leading research. But both face serious challenges. In the past year there has been talk of compulsory redundancies and also cost reductions, and there are similar issues at Edinburgh University, which is actually outside my constituency. But quite a lot of staff and students are based in Edinburgh South West. This situation cannot continue. We really need the Scottish Government to bring together the universities, the staff and the students and the trade unions to agree a way forward.
I do want to talk briefly about immigration. During my time at Heriot-Watt, I worked on fantastic academics from around the world. On one side I had in my office next door, I had a Professor, Adebayo Adeloye, from Nigeria, and on the other side I had Ben Suryanto who came from Indonesia. Our students were lucky that those people chose to come to the UK, and I feel lucky that students also came from right around the world to spend time in Edinburgh and enjoy the education here, and also the opportunities that provides. And I am really concerned that the government is making it harder for both staff and students to come here.
If we are serious about growing our economy, we have to recognise the benefits that universities provide, both nationally and also locally in our towns and cities. So it would be great to hear about what is happening inside the government, to support universities to ensure that they can thrive, both in terms of their funding and in Scotland. That is largely a matter for the Scottish Government, but I think the UK government could do more to support the immigration status for students and staff. Thank you, Mr.
Spencer.
I always say that any country which is serious about its economy should be serious about its universities, and it is great to see our Prime Minister having universities at the heart of that triple helix model he talks about so often 18 months in a similar place in this place. I quoted the then president of NUS Scotland, who warned that Scotland's education system was crumbling at that time. I hoped her words would prompt the Scottish Government into action. Sadly, they did not and Scotland's sector has lurched from crisis to crisis. While undergraduate university education in Scotland is free, it is grossly underfunded.
Broadly speaking, the average student fees in Scotland are well over £2,000 less than what universities get in England. That means less money for facilities and less money for the wages of staff. I should say. Actually, as a register of interest. I am a member of UCU and I have an on going connection with Heriot-Watt University, which I should have mentioned at the start, and. So because of these huge stresses, there's industrial action right across the sector in Scotland right now. I think it's six universities. I think industrial action, one university might suggest a local issue, but when you have industrial action right across the country and maybe suggest that the government needs to step up and do something about it.
In my own constituency, both Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot Watt are internationally recognised institutions. They are home to dedicated staff and ambitious students and world leading research. But both face serious challenges. In the past year there has been talk of compulsory redundancies and also cost reductions, and there are similar issues at Edinburgh University, which is actually outside my constituency. But quite a lot of staff and students are based in Edinburgh South West. This situation cannot continue. We really need the Scottish Government to bring together the universities, the staff and the students and the trade unions to agree a way forward.
I do want to talk briefly about immigration. During my time at Heriot-Watt, I worked on fantastic academics from around the world. On one side I had in my office next door, I had a Professor, Adebayo Adeloye, from Nigeria, and on the other side I had Ben Suryanto who came from Indonesia. Our students were lucky that those people chose to come to the UK, and I feel lucky that students also came from right around the world to spend time in Edinburgh and enjoy the education here, and also the opportunities that provides. And I am really concerned that the government is making it harder for both staff and students to come here.
If we are serious about growing our economy, we have to recognise the benefits that universities provide, both nationally and also locally in our towns and cities. So it would be great to hear about what is happening inside the government, to support universities to ensure that they can thrive, both in terms of their funding and in Scotland. That is largely a matter for the Scottish Government, but I think the UK government could do more to support the immigration status for students and staff. Thank you, Mr.
Spencer.
09:54
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Britain has a proud tradition of higher education, our historic universities, our culture of learning and discovery, and the world class research carried out in this country have earned us a reputation that is recognised around the world, and it is an asset that we must celebrate and that we must protect, because that tradition belongs to all of us. Higher education is so much broader than a three year degree. Higher technical qualifications. Foundation degrees, degree apprenticeships and lifelong learning all have a vital role to play alongside academic study. I left school at 16 and built a career as a plumber and gas engineer through vocational training at Bolton College and later apprenticeships, including the Prince's Trust's brilliant enterprise programme.
And I raised this because too often the voices of working people, tradespeople, people who maybe didn't get on with school or just prefer steel toe cap boots to suits, are missing from the debates and decisions that shape higher education. And in the areas that I represent, there is no shortage of ambition or people willing to graft to make something of themselves. But far too many people struggle through no fault of their own to see a clear route into secure, well-paid work and a decent life. A strong and accessible higher education system should be part of that route.
And that system is clearly now at breaking point. Across the country, higher education institutions are facing a deepening financial crisis driven by years of underinvestment and a funding model no longer fit for purpose. Universities, specialist colleges and other higher education providers are grappling with a multi-billion pound funding gap as tuition fee, income and public funding have failed to keep pace with their rising costs. Yesterday, more than 400 students graduated from UConn, Manchester. Many of them were the first in their family to enter higher education, while others were mature learners returning to education. And yet providers like USN that specialise in widening participation are increasingly being asked to do more with less.
With their funding steadily eroded and the consequences of this underfunding are already painfully clear courses closing, experienced staff being forced out and departments having to make severe cuts just to make ends meet. And at the same time, working conditions have worsened for all staff members, with growing workloads, stagnant pay and increasing job insecurity. And in vocational education, things have got so bad that institutions can't persuade people to leave industries like plastering to take up teaching the next generation because the wages are far below what they're already earning. And at the same time, students are facing exorbitant fees and the prospect of being burdened by decades of debt.
And if we're serious about equal opportunity, we must recognise that higher education is a long term investment in our people, in our communities and in our country, and the inventions and discoveries made by higher education researchers have the potential to benefit all of us, like the Covid 19 vaccines or the development of famine resistant crops, the government faces a choice in today's budget. They can continue papering over the cracks, or they can finally make a long term investment in Britain's future. The Green Party's position is clear higher education should be free, and students should be provided with adequate maintenance support funded through public investment, not private debt.
A 1% tax on wealth above £10 million would raise around £15 billion a year, money that would more than cover the cost of scrapping tuition fees and giving our higher education institutions a vital injection of cash. Higher education policy must focus on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country in areas like Gorton, Downton Abbey, hay, Burnage, Longsight, Levenshulme, people from these places have never, ever lacked talent or drive. We must stop wasting it by properly funding higher education and finally recognising learning for the national asset it is.
Thank you.
And I raised this because too often the voices of working people, tradespeople, people who maybe didn't get on with school or just prefer steel toe cap boots to suits, are missing from the debates and decisions that shape higher education. And in the areas that I represent, there is no shortage of ambition or people willing to graft to make something of themselves. But far too many people struggle through no fault of their own to see a clear route into secure, well-paid work and a decent life. A strong and accessible higher education system should be part of that route.
And that system is clearly now at breaking point. Across the country, higher education institutions are facing a deepening financial crisis driven by years of underinvestment and a funding model no longer fit for purpose. Universities, specialist colleges and other higher education providers are grappling with a multi-billion pound funding gap as tuition fee, income and public funding have failed to keep pace with their rising costs. Yesterday, more than 400 students graduated from UConn, Manchester. Many of them were the first in their family to enter higher education, while others were mature learners returning to education. And yet providers like USN that specialise in widening participation are increasingly being asked to do more with less.
With their funding steadily eroded and the consequences of this underfunding are already painfully clear courses closing, experienced staff being forced out and departments having to make severe cuts just to make ends meet. And at the same time, working conditions have worsened for all staff members, with growing workloads, stagnant pay and increasing job insecurity. And in vocational education, things have got so bad that institutions can't persuade people to leave industries like plastering to take up teaching the next generation because the wages are far below what they're already earning. And at the same time, students are facing exorbitant fees and the prospect of being burdened by decades of debt.
And if we're serious about equal opportunity, we must recognise that higher education is a long term investment in our people, in our communities and in our country, and the inventions and discoveries made by higher education researchers have the potential to benefit all of us, like the Covid 19 vaccines or the development of famine resistant crops, the government faces a choice in today's budget. They can continue papering over the cracks, or they can finally make a long term investment in Britain's future. The Green Party's position is clear higher education should be free, and students should be provided with adequate maintenance support funded through public investment, not private debt.
A 1% tax on wealth above £10 million would raise around £15 billion a year, money that would more than cover the cost of scrapping tuition fees and giving our higher education institutions a vital injection of cash. Higher education policy must focus on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country in areas like Gorton, Downton Abbey, hay, Burnage, Longsight, Levenshulme, people from these places have never, ever lacked talent or drive. We must stop wasting it by properly funding higher education and finally recognising learning for the national asset it is.
Thank you.
09:58
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. thank you. I congratulate the honourable friend for securing this important debate. Southampton's home to two excellent universities and yet kids growing up in my constituency, of those on free school meals, only 7% of them will hold a degree by the time they are 22. Even of those who don't receive free school meals, just 19% in Itchen will get their go a few miles up the road to Winchester, and that becomes 39%. We must make sure that higher education is not shut down as an option for young people. So my contribution, I just want to focus on three points, which I think are becoming worryingly clear, and that is that the funding system, as it is, is not working for students, it's not working for universities.
And I worry that the only one it is working for is the Treasury. And that's not what I believe this Labour government is about . On students. I was the first in my family lucky enough to go to university and I started in 2000 when wait for it fees were £1,025. My annual loan was about 3500 pounds. Now we looked enviously on the generation before us who didn't pay fees and who actually received a grant to go there. This generation is looking enviously on my generation, and I think that tells us something very worrying. I went on to spend 20 years as a university lecturer, and so saw every subsequent wave of student finance agreements, and the Treasury Committee has concluded that where we are now is essentially a mis selling some of the previous loan agreements.
And these are on terms that no commercial lender would ever be allowed to offer. I will.
And I worry that the only one it is working for is the Treasury. And that's not what I believe this Labour government is about . On students. I was the first in my family lucky enough to go to university and I started in 2000 when wait for it fees were £1,025. My annual loan was about 3500 pounds. Now we looked enviously on the generation before us who didn't pay fees and who actually received a grant to go there. This generation is looking enviously on my generation, and I think that tells us something very worrying. I went on to spend 20 years as a university lecturer, and so saw every subsequent wave of student finance agreements, and the Treasury Committee has concluded that where we are now is essentially a mis selling some of the previous loan agreements.
And these are on terms that no commercial lender would ever be allowed to offer. I will.
10:00
10:00
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
He makes it absolutely salient point. And, you know, I think many of us never imagined we would get to an even worse place. But here we are, only the top three earning deciles of recent intakes will ever pay off their student loans in full. The nurse, the teacher, the engineer on £35,000 will pay 9% for decades and still never clear the balance. Dare I say it, if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, call it a tax, treat it as one, properly sort it and it could well be a better deal than the current loan system.
10:01
10:01
10:01
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank my hon. Friend. He's making a very compelling speech. I wonder if he has noticed the coverage in the Telegraph that reports that next year, graduates on the minimum wage will be making repayments repayments on three out of the five student loan plans from next year onwards. And would he agree with me that this in many ways breaks the social contract that we have with our student population, who were essentially told that they would earn a huge amount more and therefore they should contribute to their higher education?
10:02
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I agree that this is not the deal that I think our country wants to offer its young people, particularly if this government is about breaking down barriers to opportunities. Secondly, for universities, the office for students reported in May that more than a third of English higher education institutes were already in deficit last year, and that if recruitment simply flatlines, then nearly 6 in 10 could be in deficit within five years. International student numbers, as honourable members have stated, have fallen by around 45,000 last year, and study visa applications in the first months of this year were down by a third.
Our education select committee that I sit on warned in May of the real threat of insolvency universities like ours, the University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University, are anchors of our local economy, and I know that's reflected around the country as well. We can't afford to let them fail because they are not immune from the job losses that are affecting other eyes. Thirdly, the taxpayer, the government estimates that the state meets 35 to 40% of the cost of higher education. Others take a different view. The IFS puts the figure for 2022 cohort at around 3%, with 97% of the cost met by students themselves.
Sir Philip Augar recommended a 5050 split. Whichever number you look at and whichever one you choose to believe, we are a long way from the balance that Parliament intended and that that bill is being quietly passed to young people. Which brings me to the international student levy. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely welcome the return of maintenance grants for families on low incomes. These really matter, but a grant of up to £1,000 a year is around £20 a week, and it's to be funded by a levy of £920 per international student from 2028 forecast last November to raise £445 million in its first year.
But that forecast was made before visa applications fell by a third. And I fear that a grant that depends on a shrinking tax base is a good intention, but it's built on sand. So I ask the minister if she'll commit to publishing before the levy legislation completes its passage, an updated forecast of what it will raise on today's recruitment figures and confirm that maintenance grants will be protected if that falls short. And finally, alongside that, the government has said that the whole student finance system is under review. That is news that I welcome enthusiastically. Will she set out how and by when that review will report, and whether it will move us back towards a fair balance between the state and the individual.
All of this is honourable members are making their points very eloquently, is about intergenerational justice. It's about whether 22 year old me would look at university and say, yeah, I can risk that. Or more likely, as would happen now, I'd be like, nah, my family has never done that and I cannot simply afford it. It is about growth and it is about the 7% inhibition and more across this country who deserve better opportunities and better odds.
Our education select committee that I sit on warned in May of the real threat of insolvency universities like ours, the University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University, are anchors of our local economy, and I know that's reflected around the country as well. We can't afford to let them fail because they are not immune from the job losses that are affecting other eyes. Thirdly, the taxpayer, the government estimates that the state meets 35 to 40% of the cost of higher education. Others take a different view. The IFS puts the figure for 2022 cohort at around 3%, with 97% of the cost met by students themselves.
Sir Philip Augar recommended a 5050 split. Whichever number you look at and whichever one you choose to believe, we are a long way from the balance that Parliament intended and that that bill is being quietly passed to young people. Which brings me to the international student levy. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely welcome the return of maintenance grants for families on low incomes. These really matter, but a grant of up to £1,000 a year is around £20 a week, and it's to be funded by a levy of £920 per international student from 2028 forecast last November to raise £445 million in its first year.
But that forecast was made before visa applications fell by a third. And I fear that a grant that depends on a shrinking tax base is a good intention, but it's built on sand. So I ask the minister if she'll commit to publishing before the levy legislation completes its passage, an updated forecast of what it will raise on today's recruitment figures and confirm that maintenance grants will be protected if that falls short. And finally, alongside that, the government has said that the whole student finance system is under review. That is news that I welcome enthusiastically. Will she set out how and by when that review will report, and whether it will move us back towards a fair balance between the state and the individual.
All of this is honourable members are making their points very eloquently, is about intergenerational justice. It's about whether 22 year old me would look at university and say, yeah, I can risk that. Or more likely, as would happen now, I'd be like, nah, my family has never done that and I cannot simply afford it. It is about growth and it is about the 7% inhibition and more across this country who deserve better opportunities and better odds.
10:05
10:05
10:05
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Mrs. Vaz, it's an honour to serve under your chairship. And I also would like to thank the member for Sheffield Central for bringing this debate. And as remarkable as it is to imagine, I also began university under Margaret Thatcher. Sure. Thanks, Jim. The higher education funding settlement is currently failing both universities and young people in Cornwall. Institutions such as Falmouth University, based largely in my Camborne-redruth and Hayle constituency, are central to our local economy and our skills base, yet they are increasingly being asked to educate students at a loss. Delivering a full time degree costs more than £12,000 a year, even when the maximum tuition fees rises past £10,000 next year, it will still fall well short.
No sector can remain sustainable if growth depends on losses, and the funding gap is particularly acute for regional and specialist institutions. Universities, therefore, are forced to compete for short term grants and rely on international student income to balance the books. But when that income falls, courses and jobs are at risk. We have seen this play out over the summer at Exeter University's Tremough campus, also in my Camborne and Redruth and Hayle constituency, with voluntary redundancies and the closure of its geography course, the system is not working for students either, especially those from lower income backgrounds.
In my constituency, less than 23% of 18 year olds went to university in 2025. Compare this with 51% in London. That is not because young people in Cornwall lack talent or ambition. It is because in one of the poorest regions of northern Europe, the costs of pursuing a degree with the associated debt are too great to even consider. The barriers to higher education are simply too high. Even students who remain in Cornwall, but rightly want to live on campus, find that the rent for a single room consumes almost their entire maintenance loan before they've spent a penny on food, travel or other essentials.
Nor does the loan system make things any better. Those from wealthier families may avoid taking out a loan altogether. Whilst low income students have no such option, a low income student for a three year course could be left with a £67,000 debt the moment they graduate. The interest on the debt often accumulates faster than repayments, leaving poorer graduates paying a higher effective rate for their entire careers. Higher education should expand opportunity and drive growth in places like Cornwall. Instead, we have a system that asks universities to do more with less while operating a student loan system that, for all intents and purposes, functions as a regressive graduate tax.
We cannot build a fairer, more productive country on that foundation. So I ask the minister, what steps is the government taking to make higher education funding fairer for students and more sustainable for universities?
No sector can remain sustainable if growth depends on losses, and the funding gap is particularly acute for regional and specialist institutions. Universities, therefore, are forced to compete for short term grants and rely on international student income to balance the books. But when that income falls, courses and jobs are at risk. We have seen this play out over the summer at Exeter University's Tremough campus, also in my Camborne and Redruth and Hayle constituency, with voluntary redundancies and the closure of its geography course, the system is not working for students either, especially those from lower income backgrounds.
In my constituency, less than 23% of 18 year olds went to university in 2025. Compare this with 51% in London. That is not because young people in Cornwall lack talent or ambition. It is because in one of the poorest regions of northern Europe, the costs of pursuing a degree with the associated debt are too great to even consider. The barriers to higher education are simply too high. Even students who remain in Cornwall, but rightly want to live on campus, find that the rent for a single room consumes almost their entire maintenance loan before they've spent a penny on food, travel or other essentials.
Nor does the loan system make things any better. Those from wealthier families may avoid taking out a loan altogether. Whilst low income students have no such option, a low income student for a three year course could be left with a £67,000 debt the moment they graduate. The interest on the debt often accumulates faster than repayments, leaving poorer graduates paying a higher effective rate for their entire careers. Higher education should expand opportunity and drive growth in places like Cornwall. Instead, we have a system that asks universities to do more with less while operating a student loan system that, for all intents and purposes, functions as a regressive graduate tax.
We cannot build a fairer, more productive country on that foundation. So I ask the minister, what steps is the government taking to make higher education funding fairer for students and more sustainable for universities?
10:08
10:08
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Madam Chair, and thank you for securing this debate today. I declare an interest as a member of UCU and a member of the Appg universities. Everybody in this debate wants to see young people and lifelong learners succeed in their chosen path in life, and most would agree that the government has done a great deal to invest in education and skills since 2024, and I want to pay tribute to that. We've seen that uplift in our schools, in our Sen provision in youth hubs, colleges and apprenticeships. Our debate today, however, is focused on the situation in higher education and my discussions with those who work in and represent that sector give me cause for concern, as I know it does.
Many colleagues here, so I've spoken before in this place and elsewhere, as have other South Essex MPs, about the very significant challenges that my former colleagues at the University of Essex have faced over the past year. The university closed its South End campus and made large numbers of staff redundant there and at its main Colchester campus. But the University of Essex is not alone, as we've heard. In facing these painful challenges, many universities are closing departments and issuing redundancies. At least two other universities are considering campus withdrawals or closures. The University of Buckingham has withdrawn from its Crewe campus to be replaced as the main operator by Apollo Education.
The University of Brighton is closing its Eastbourne campus and is considering closing its Falmer campus. Now. Other institutions are merging the University of Kent with Greenwich City University, with Saint George's, Kings with Cranfield. These new arrangements are, I think, the start of a, of a, of a, of a new era in higher education. They raise the very thorny issue of how universities that were brought into being by the Privy Council via royal charters, merge with those that were brought into being as companies limited by guarantee. I suspect that this is a policy rug that nobody really wants to lift.
Other universities are being brought out or privatised. Lincoln Bishop University, for example, is now operated by Global University Systems, a global body with millions of students around the world. Now, this new era of campus closures, redundancies, mergers and buyouts comes at a time when many in the sector face huge financial challenges. The Education Select Committee has been referenced here, recently reported that, and I quote, the higher education sector in England is facing a financial crisis that now poses a real risk of institutional insolvency. This is a situation that requires our close attention. So, Madam Chair, we need our universities to thrive in our rich research and teaching ecosystem.
They're part of an ecosystem. Our industrial strategy depends on it, as does our ability to create sovereign innovations in every sector. Now, universities seems to me, are very ready to adapt and have adapted over the years, but they need us here to have more open conversations in this place about how they can best do that. So I would ask the minister to continue to champion our universities, but to support them by enabling more open conversations like this one about the scale of the challenges they face.
Thank you.
Many colleagues here, so I've spoken before in this place and elsewhere, as have other South Essex MPs, about the very significant challenges that my former colleagues at the University of Essex have faced over the past year. The university closed its South End campus and made large numbers of staff redundant there and at its main Colchester campus. But the University of Essex is not alone, as we've heard. In facing these painful challenges, many universities are closing departments and issuing redundancies. At least two other universities are considering campus withdrawals or closures. The University of Buckingham has withdrawn from its Crewe campus to be replaced as the main operator by Apollo Education.
The University of Brighton is closing its Eastbourne campus and is considering closing its Falmer campus. Now. Other institutions are merging the University of Kent with Greenwich City University, with Saint George's, Kings with Cranfield. These new arrangements are, I think, the start of a, of a, of a, of a new era in higher education. They raise the very thorny issue of how universities that were brought into being by the Privy Council via royal charters, merge with those that were brought into being as companies limited by guarantee. I suspect that this is a policy rug that nobody really wants to lift.
Other universities are being brought out or privatised. Lincoln Bishop University, for example, is now operated by Global University Systems, a global body with millions of students around the world. Now, this new era of campus closures, redundancies, mergers and buyouts comes at a time when many in the sector face huge financial challenges. The Education Select Committee has been referenced here, recently reported that, and I quote, the higher education sector in England is facing a financial crisis that now poses a real risk of institutional insolvency. This is a situation that requires our close attention. So, Madam Chair, we need our universities to thrive in our rich research and teaching ecosystem.
They're part of an ecosystem. Our industrial strategy depends on it, as does our ability to create sovereign innovations in every sector. Now, universities seems to me, are very ready to adapt and have adapted over the years, but they need us here to have more open conversations in this place about how they can best do that. So I would ask the minister to continue to champion our universities, but to support them by enabling more open conversations like this one about the scale of the challenges they face.
Thank you.
10:12
10:12
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Sheffield Central in securing this timely debate. Now, my constituency of Paul doesn't have a university within it, but of course, I do have many constituents who study and work at the two nearby universities in Bournemouth. However, my interest in this subject comes from the fact that when I was a regional official for unison, I was head of the HP section in the South East and this experience taught me a lot about the way in which the sector was financed.
Today, a growing number of institutions are forecasting deficits, and many have either or soon will be introducing cost cutting measures that other members have mentioned, including redundancies among both academic and support staff as well. Now, for years , there's been a financial overreliance on international students. And during Covid, when I was working as a trade union official, we saw that decline greatly, and it hasn't yet been able to come back. Coupled with changes to visa restrictions, international students are being put off from coming to UK. There's also rising operational costs, energy costs, pensions, national insurance rises.
They've all had an impact on large campuses and we have a tuition fee funding model that's failed to keep pace with those rising costs. But the real reason for the state of HEA funding is the marketisation of the sector, pitching one university against another to compete for students has driven an arms race to build the shiniest buildings they can, often at the expense of the teaching and student experience. And at any time, many of our campuses look more like a building site than a university. The financial risks, however, are not evenly spread across the sector.
Institutions with smaller reserves are limited. International recruitment and weaker balance sheets are particularly exposed. But the most invidious result of these financial pressures is the move to make staff pay for the failure of the system at a number of universities, including those with whom I used to negotiate. We are seeing the creation of subsidiary companies to transfer staff out of direct university employment, and the effect of this removes them from either the local government pension scheme or the teachers Pension scheme. Now, staff who refuse to transfer are often faced with the threat of redundancy. So despite the government's best efforts, this looks remarkably to me like fire and rehire.
Now the government cannot secure the future of the sector simply through further fee increases on students. I believe we need an immediate cap on student numbers for each institution, rather than allow the larger institutions to hoover up all the available students in an area. We need financial support for those universities facing immediate financial pressure, and we need to put a halt to the redundancy and wholesale course closures that are taking place across many of those institutions. Now, the Prime Minister has made it clear that his growth agenda is based on a triple helix model of business, government and universities working together.
But for this to succeed, we need a healthy He sector. And for this to happen, we need greater government intervention and support.
Today, a growing number of institutions are forecasting deficits, and many have either or soon will be introducing cost cutting measures that other members have mentioned, including redundancies among both academic and support staff as well. Now, for years , there's been a financial overreliance on international students. And during Covid, when I was working as a trade union official, we saw that decline greatly, and it hasn't yet been able to come back. Coupled with changes to visa restrictions, international students are being put off from coming to UK. There's also rising operational costs, energy costs, pensions, national insurance rises.
They've all had an impact on large campuses and we have a tuition fee funding model that's failed to keep pace with those rising costs. But the real reason for the state of HEA funding is the marketisation of the sector, pitching one university against another to compete for students has driven an arms race to build the shiniest buildings they can, often at the expense of the teaching and student experience. And at any time, many of our campuses look more like a building site than a university. The financial risks, however, are not evenly spread across the sector.
Institutions with smaller reserves are limited. International recruitment and weaker balance sheets are particularly exposed. But the most invidious result of these financial pressures is the move to make staff pay for the failure of the system at a number of universities, including those with whom I used to negotiate. We are seeing the creation of subsidiary companies to transfer staff out of direct university employment, and the effect of this removes them from either the local government pension scheme or the teachers Pension scheme. Now, staff who refuse to transfer are often faced with the threat of redundancy. So despite the government's best efforts, this looks remarkably to me like fire and rehire.
Now the government cannot secure the future of the sector simply through further fee increases on students. I believe we need an immediate cap on student numbers for each institution, rather than allow the larger institutions to hoover up all the available students in an area. We need financial support for those universities facing immediate financial pressure, and we need to put a halt to the redundancy and wholesale course closures that are taking place across many of those institutions. Now, the Prime Minister has made it clear that his growth agenda is based on a triple helix model of business, government and universities working together.
But for this to succeed, we need a healthy He sector. And for this to happen, we need greater government intervention and support.
10:16
10:16
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And thank you to the member for Sheffield Central for securing this debate. Access to higher education can be life changing for young people. However, this opportunity is already harder to grasp for young people. In Cornwall, students face the high cost of travelling from remote, disconnected areas and if they stay local, high costs of private renting in a tourism heavy region. Students across the South West face the second highest monthly living costs in the UK, at £1,212 per month, which is only £114 less than London. These financial barriers directly impact whether young people pursue higher education.
While the 2025 UK wide entry rate for 18 year olds was 36.3%, the South West was joint lowest at 30 and in Truro and Falmouth this was 27.2, which is actually the lowest proportion on record since 2016. The value of having universities close by with a variety of courses and offerings is key for young people in Cornwall being able to access the opportunities of higher education. He is an investment in place, nowhere more so than in Cornwall. It leads to economic growth, productivity, innovation including higher wages and skills and regional development. Funding concerns have been ongoing in relation to higher education institutions in Cornwall, and it's integral that support for these vital institutions is considered losing higher education opportunities here, especially with the campus that's in my hon.
Friend's constituency across the border means Cornish students risk losing out on those opportunities. Additionally, Falmouth University, which began in my constituency, offers both traditional creative arts alongside technical and entrepreneurial courses and produces nearly 7000 highly skilled graduates each year. Tuition fee income doesn't meet the costs of delivering these degrees, particularly in creative and technical universities like Falmouth. That leaves universities with a difficult choice sacrifice their core academic delivery for research investment or engage with more corporates. Government funding is cost is cost intensive to obtain , and competitive and frequent changes to government funding models make it very hard to plan effectively.
Specialist institutions like Falmouth are unevenly affected, with those higher costs to secure fewer grants. Funding for these integral institutions can't fall by the wayside. They offer employment opportunities locally, wider economic benefits, and give young people in Cornwall a tangible place to pin their aspirations. I welcome the government's reintroduction of funding for higher education through targeted, means tested maintenance grants, something that will support low income students from deprived areas to access and excel in higher education. We need to make sure that funding for a diverse range of courses that allow young people to gain skills and access new experiences is accessible, realistic and allows for the higher education sector to continue to foster ambition in Truro and Falmouth, Cornwall, the South West and indeed across the UK.
While the 2025 UK wide entry rate for 18 year olds was 36.3%, the South West was joint lowest at 30 and in Truro and Falmouth this was 27.2, which is actually the lowest proportion on record since 2016. The value of having universities close by with a variety of courses and offerings is key for young people in Cornwall being able to access the opportunities of higher education. He is an investment in place, nowhere more so than in Cornwall. It leads to economic growth, productivity, innovation including higher wages and skills and regional development. Funding concerns have been ongoing in relation to higher education institutions in Cornwall, and it's integral that support for these vital institutions is considered losing higher education opportunities here, especially with the campus that's in my hon.
Friend's constituency across the border means Cornish students risk losing out on those opportunities. Additionally, Falmouth University, which began in my constituency, offers both traditional creative arts alongside technical and entrepreneurial courses and produces nearly 7000 highly skilled graduates each year. Tuition fee income doesn't meet the costs of delivering these degrees, particularly in creative and technical universities like Falmouth. That leaves universities with a difficult choice sacrifice their core academic delivery for research investment or engage with more corporates. Government funding is cost is cost intensive to obtain , and competitive and frequent changes to government funding models make it very hard to plan effectively.
Specialist institutions like Falmouth are unevenly affected, with those higher costs to secure fewer grants. Funding for these integral institutions can't fall by the wayside. They offer employment opportunities locally, wider economic benefits, and give young people in Cornwall a tangible place to pin their aspirations. I welcome the government's reintroduction of funding for higher education through targeted, means tested maintenance grants, something that will support low income students from deprived areas to access and excel in higher education. We need to make sure that funding for a diverse range of courses that allow young people to gain skills and access new experiences is accessible, realistic and allows for the higher education sector to continue to foster ambition in Truro and Falmouth, Cornwall, the South West and indeed across the UK.
10:21
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, Madam Chair and it's a pleasure to serve this morning. I'd like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Sheffield Central for securing this important debate. Now Sheffield is my university. I attended the 45th reunion last weekend and apart from the fact that many of my former student colleagues had decided to dye their hair grey, everybody was looking remarkably well. And I'd also like to say that I actually went to university before Mrs. Thatcher, the Prime Minister. So I'm, as you know, a former NHS surgeon, a father of three children have all been through our university system.
Now our universities are among our greatest assets, as we've heard from the many thoughtful contributions in this morning's debate. They drive research. They support our local economies. But. But we cannot take them for granted. They are facing considerable financial pressure, rising operating costs and an increasing reliance on international student income have left many of them in a very precarious position. Now, we all know the importance of universities far beyond the lecture theatres. Just this Monday, I spoke in the House about the genetic research, the University of East Anglia that will help us distinguish between dangerous and less dangerous prostate cancers, a subject that we absolutely need to sort out.
Now, that sort of groundbreaking research depends on well-funded universities with a confidence to invest in the long term, particularly in subjects such as my own in medicine, but also in the sciences and many others, where the costs of providing higher education and training are considerable. So the government's decision to increase tuition fee caps in line with inflation, rather than allowing their value to erode makes sense. And I also welcome the return of maintenance grants. These are important steps towards supporting universities and students, but we must recognise there is a difficult balance at the heart of this debate.
Universities need more money, yet increasing tuition fees means we're asking students to take more debt. Now I can see that generational difference in my own family. My . My two eldest children studied under plan one. My my youngest is on plan two, and the students I met at Thurston Community College in my constituency face the prospect of something called plan five, with repayments potentially stretching over 40 years now.
When I graduated from medical school, I did so without tuition fee debt. I began my career, I entered the housing market, and I gradually became more secure. But for today's graduates, that looks
Now our universities are among our greatest assets, as we've heard from the many thoughtful contributions in this morning's debate. They drive research. They support our local economies. But. But we cannot take them for granted. They are facing considerable financial pressure, rising operating costs and an increasing reliance on international student income have left many of them in a very precarious position. Now, we all know the importance of universities far beyond the lecture theatres. Just this Monday, I spoke in the House about the genetic research, the University of East Anglia that will help us distinguish between dangerous and less dangerous prostate cancers, a subject that we absolutely need to sort out.
Now, that sort of groundbreaking research depends on well-funded universities with a confidence to invest in the long term, particularly in subjects such as my own in medicine, but also in the sciences and many others, where the costs of providing higher education and training are considerable. So the government's decision to increase tuition fee caps in line with inflation, rather than allowing their value to erode makes sense. And I also welcome the return of maintenance grants. These are important steps towards supporting universities and students, but we must recognise there is a difficult balance at the heart of this debate.
Universities need more money, yet increasing tuition fees means we're asking students to take more debt. Now I can see that generational difference in my own family. My . My two eldest children studied under plan one. My my youngest is on plan two, and the students I met at Thurston Community College in my constituency face the prospect of something called plan five, with repayments potentially stretching over 40 years now.
When I graduated from medical school, I did so without tuition fee debt. I began my career, I entered the housing market, and I gradually became more secure. But for today's graduates, that looks
10:27
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Graduates. That looks very, very different. A maths graduate who recently attended one of my constituency surgeries brought home just how complicated our student finance system has become. He brought a very, very well worked out spreadsheet which explained this to me, at least at the time, although I couldn't possibly explain it to you today. Now we must avoid a situation in which the financial sustainability of our great universities is secured, simply by transferring the ever greater burden onto the next generation, for generational unfairness is the great challenge of this Parliament. Now, I ask the minister, consider just two things.
First, how can we provide universities with greater long term funding certainty rather than leaving them so dependent on tuition fees and unpredictable international student recruitment? Second, how can we ensure that efforts to ensure to stabilise university finances are accompanied by a fair and transparent student finance system, so that young people really understand the financial commitments they make? Now? Our universities need financial stability, but our students need financial security. And this is a hard thing, but our government knows how to do hard things.
Thank you chair.
First, how can we provide universities with greater long term funding certainty rather than leaving them so dependent on tuition fees and unpredictable international student recruitment? Second, how can we ensure that efforts to ensure to stabilise university finances are accompanied by a fair and transparent student finance system, so that young people really understand the financial commitments they make? Now? Our universities need financial stability, but our students need financial security. And this is a hard thing, but our government knows how to do hard things.
Thank you chair.
10:30
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Miss Vaz. And I congratulate my hon. Friend from Sheffield Central for securing this debate and the contributions from across the chamber today. At least it should be said that issues facing our universities are preserve of big city MPs or from leafy suburbs. I speak as Sunderland Central's MP and want to highlight the University of Sunderland's importance to my city. This is as much a red wall issue as it is for anywhere else in the country. The University of Sunderland's educational and economic impact, and what the higher education funding environment means for our city.
The university that I speak about comes from the proudest of polytechnic traditions. It's rooted in the city, with a mission to be open to anyone that can benefit from higher education, and it's shaped by what local employers and the professions need. Nowhere is that clearer than in health. Sunderland trains the nurses, pharmacists, paramedics and doctors that our NHS relies on. Its medical school was explicitly set up to bring more working class and local students into medicine, and it's now moving into dental education now, in a region where too many people struggle to see NHS dentists.
When it was named University of the year for social inclusion, more than 6 in 10 of its students were the first in their family to go to university. And can I associate myself with the remarks of my honourable friend from Southampton, Itchen, about the intergenerational and social mobility missions of our universities that is crucial in Sunderland as it is elsewhere. This is what widening participation looks like in practice. Young people from Pallion, Hendon or Southwick in my constituency, having the chance to get a degree de-risking by living at home, some of the financial issues facing students that we've talked about.
The university also, as we've heard from other colleagues, brings people to the North east from across the country. And as successive governments, international strategies have encouraged from around the world in terms of its economic impact. Independent analysis found that University of Sunderland adds around £250 million a year to our city's economy, and supports more than 4000 jobs in the city. One of our biggest employees, the university, however, is under real financial pressure and this has serious consequences for the city as a whole. While home tuition income has fallen behind costs and the visa landscape for international students has changed rapidly and unpredictably.
As a result, the university has had to set out plans to save £40 million over the next two years, and staff are understandably worried about their jobs. That pressure didn't come from nowhere. For years, the previous government froze tuition fees while costs kept rising with no long term plan. As others have said, government now expects a fund at just £16 pence in every pound of home student funding. Universities that do the most to open doors, like Sunderland are left the most exposed. I know the government is working within significant fiscal constraints. I know it's taken steps to set stable expectations for future fee income so that proper financial planning can happen.
And I, of course, welcome the return of targeted maintenance grants. But in previous responses, the government have been keen to highlight that universities have always been autonomous institutions. And I understand that. And my. Understanding and experience has been that they take that responsibility to be very financially sustainable seriously, even when that means making deeply painful and locally unpopular decisions like the withdrawal of funding from our National Glass Centre in Sunderland. But I say this we can't treat them as autonomous institutions, while assume they will always be there as anchors in communities like Sunderland and across the country.
And I hope we can hear more about the government's strategy in the long term in the response. Thank you.
The university that I speak about comes from the proudest of polytechnic traditions. It's rooted in the city, with a mission to be open to anyone that can benefit from higher education, and it's shaped by what local employers and the professions need. Nowhere is that clearer than in health. Sunderland trains the nurses, pharmacists, paramedics and doctors that our NHS relies on. Its medical school was explicitly set up to bring more working class and local students into medicine, and it's now moving into dental education now, in a region where too many people struggle to see NHS dentists.
When it was named University of the year for social inclusion, more than 6 in 10 of its students were the first in their family to go to university. And can I associate myself with the remarks of my honourable friend from Southampton, Itchen, about the intergenerational and social mobility missions of our universities that is crucial in Sunderland as it is elsewhere. This is what widening participation looks like in practice. Young people from Pallion, Hendon or Southwick in my constituency, having the chance to get a degree de-risking by living at home, some of the financial issues facing students that we've talked about.
The university also, as we've heard from other colleagues, brings people to the North east from across the country. And as successive governments, international strategies have encouraged from around the world in terms of its economic impact. Independent analysis found that University of Sunderland adds around £250 million a year to our city's economy, and supports more than 4000 jobs in the city. One of our biggest employees, the university, however, is under real financial pressure and this has serious consequences for the city as a whole. While home tuition income has fallen behind costs and the visa landscape for international students has changed rapidly and unpredictably.
As a result, the university has had to set out plans to save £40 million over the next two years, and staff are understandably worried about their jobs. That pressure didn't come from nowhere. For years, the previous government froze tuition fees while costs kept rising with no long term plan. As others have said, government now expects a fund at just £16 pence in every pound of home student funding. Universities that do the most to open doors, like Sunderland are left the most exposed. I know the government is working within significant fiscal constraints. I know it's taken steps to set stable expectations for future fee income so that proper financial planning can happen.
And I, of course, welcome the return of targeted maintenance grants. But in previous responses, the government have been keen to highlight that universities have always been autonomous institutions. And I understand that. And my. Understanding and experience has been that they take that responsibility to be very financially sustainable seriously, even when that means making deeply painful and locally unpopular decisions like the withdrawal of funding from our National Glass Centre in Sunderland. But I say this we can't treat them as autonomous institutions, while assume they will always be there as anchors in communities like Sunderland and across the country.
And I hope we can hear more about the government's strategy in the long term in the response. Thank you.
10:38
10:38
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you. Mrs.. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the honourable member for Sheffield Central on securing this debate and Sheffield is an excellent, excellent place to ground this debate because it has two great examples of the origin stories of many of our universities. The University of Sheffield is a civic university in the truest sense. When it sought its charter in 1904, steelworkers, factory workers and other local people raised over £50,000 in penny donations to support it, and Sheffield Hallam traces its roots to the School of Design, founded in 1843 to train designers for the city's industry and became a university in 1992.
One red brick, one post 92. Both serve the city and both embody the idea of universities as anchors of their community. That idea is now at risk. Miss Vaz, the. Later today, the Chancellor delivers his first budget, and every signal is that universities should expect very little from it. But we can't continue to ignore the stark choice before us when it comes to university policy, either. We carry on with a managed decline. Course is cut talent lost places left behind, or we can choose transformation universities as engines of learning throughout life, as innovation hubs driving economic growth, and as civic institutions embedded in the places they serve.
The Liberal Democrats would choose transformation, and I hope the government will do the same, because at the moment, too many universities are fighting for survival. More than a third of English providers were in deficit last year. The department's own costing study found that universities lose around £3,000 on every home undergraduate they teach, and research is worse. Universities now recover only two thirds of research costs, and, according to the Russell Group, universities put in £6.3 billion of their own money into research last year. For many years now, the funding gap has been filled by international students, but that income is now also falling away.
Visa applications In August, the peak month were down 17% on a year ago. Education as a great British export is, of course, about much more than money. But the business model that has saved the government from spending more on home students and research is being undermined in the finance bill that will follow today's budget. The government has said that it intends to legislate for a £925 levy on every international student, and only a tiny sliver of that money raised goes to the maintenance grants that were put forward as a justification for it. Now, this crisis does not simply affect an ivory tower elite sitting apart from our communities in many towns and cities, the university is one of the largest employers and the source of the next generation of teachers, nurses, engineers and many other professions producing graduates likely to stay and work locally, and serving students often least able to move away to study when a nursing course or an engineering department closes in such a place, it does not relocate, it disappears from that region, and with it goes a route into a profession for everyone who cannot simply up sticks and leave.
And post 92 universities carry a burden. Their older neighbours do not. For no other reason than institutional history. They are tied into the teachers pension scheme, where employer contributions reached 28.7% last year, roughly double what many older universities pay. That's around £8,000 extra a year for a typical member of staff. Enjoy. In July, the government ruled out any help , but part of solving the crisis in the sector must include working towards a single, fairer pensions framework. And there is also the question of what happens when one of these institutions does not survive, the office for students told the Education Select Committee that 24 institutions could exit the market within a year.
The committee recommended a special administration regime so that a failing university can keep teaching while its future is resolved. But the government has said it's not currently persuaded because legislating would be too complex. I would argue that that is an argument for starting now, not for doing nothing. Further education colleges have had a special regime since 2019, and having no regime has its own risks, with no orderly way to fail, many simply assume the government will step in. Sir Philip Augar has said a handful of universities are already getting secret bailouts. When I asked ministers about that, I was told emergency support is not provided, but also that officials meet universities and their banks regularly in confidence, now discussing potential rescues behind closed doors gives us all of the moral hazard and none of the transparency.
Liberal Democrats see universities as essential national infrastructure, not cost centres to be squeezed, and that means a new settlement in the short term reform the levy before it reaches the statute book Reprofile student loan fee free payments to ease the cash flow , offer low interest loans for restructuring and remove the VAT penalty that stops universities sharing back office services. So they merge finance and HR rather than cut teaching. We need to fund the breadth of subjects in every region and make sure public research grants actually cover the 80% of costs they're supposed to. But this also needs to be in partnership with obligations on universities as well.
The money alone will not fix it. After 2030, the number of 18 year olds falls by 17%, yet 82% of the growth in priority occupations in the industrial strategy sectors will require a higher a higher education qualification. Put those two facts together, and a model built around school leavers simply won't work long term. Many of the people who will fill the jobs in that growth are already in work, and will need to retrain as technology reshapes what they do. So universities do need to open up to adults through modular lifelong learning, and we would suggest that needs to be through lifelong skills grants, not simply loans.
They also need to work hand in hand with further education, college with credits that transfer between them. And they need to turn British research into businesses that stay in Britain. Yes, I certainly will.
One red brick, one post 92. Both serve the city and both embody the idea of universities as anchors of their community. That idea is now at risk. Miss Vaz, the. Later today, the Chancellor delivers his first budget, and every signal is that universities should expect very little from it. But we can't continue to ignore the stark choice before us when it comes to university policy, either. We carry on with a managed decline. Course is cut talent lost places left behind, or we can choose transformation universities as engines of learning throughout life, as innovation hubs driving economic growth, and as civic institutions embedded in the places they serve.
The Liberal Democrats would choose transformation, and I hope the government will do the same, because at the moment, too many universities are fighting for survival. More than a third of English providers were in deficit last year. The department's own costing study found that universities lose around £3,000 on every home undergraduate they teach, and research is worse. Universities now recover only two thirds of research costs, and, according to the Russell Group, universities put in £6.3 billion of their own money into research last year. For many years now, the funding gap has been filled by international students, but that income is now also falling away.
Visa applications In August, the peak month were down 17% on a year ago. Education as a great British export is, of course, about much more than money. But the business model that has saved the government from spending more on home students and research is being undermined in the finance bill that will follow today's budget. The government has said that it intends to legislate for a £925 levy on every international student, and only a tiny sliver of that money raised goes to the maintenance grants that were put forward as a justification for it. Now, this crisis does not simply affect an ivory tower elite sitting apart from our communities in many towns and cities, the university is one of the largest employers and the source of the next generation of teachers, nurses, engineers and many other professions producing graduates likely to stay and work locally, and serving students often least able to move away to study when a nursing course or an engineering department closes in such a place, it does not relocate, it disappears from that region, and with it goes a route into a profession for everyone who cannot simply up sticks and leave.
And post 92 universities carry a burden. Their older neighbours do not. For no other reason than institutional history. They are tied into the teachers pension scheme, where employer contributions reached 28.7% last year, roughly double what many older universities pay. That's around £8,000 extra a year for a typical member of staff. Enjoy. In July, the government ruled out any help , but part of solving the crisis in the sector must include working towards a single, fairer pensions framework. And there is also the question of what happens when one of these institutions does not survive, the office for students told the Education Select Committee that 24 institutions could exit the market within a year.
The committee recommended a special administration regime so that a failing university can keep teaching while its future is resolved. But the government has said it's not currently persuaded because legislating would be too complex. I would argue that that is an argument for starting now, not for doing nothing. Further education colleges have had a special regime since 2019, and having no regime has its own risks, with no orderly way to fail, many simply assume the government will step in. Sir Philip Augar has said a handful of universities are already getting secret bailouts. When I asked ministers about that, I was told emergency support is not provided, but also that officials meet universities and their banks regularly in confidence, now discussing potential rescues behind closed doors gives us all of the moral hazard and none of the transparency.
Liberal Democrats see universities as essential national infrastructure, not cost centres to be squeezed, and that means a new settlement in the short term reform the levy before it reaches the statute book Reprofile student loan fee free payments to ease the cash flow , offer low interest loans for restructuring and remove the VAT penalty that stops universities sharing back office services. So they merge finance and HR rather than cut teaching. We need to fund the breadth of subjects in every region and make sure public research grants actually cover the 80% of costs they're supposed to. But this also needs to be in partnership with obligations on universities as well.
The money alone will not fix it. After 2030, the number of 18 year olds falls by 17%, yet 82% of the growth in priority occupations in the industrial strategy sectors will require a higher a higher education qualification. Put those two facts together, and a model built around school leavers simply won't work long term. Many of the people who will fill the jobs in that growth are already in work, and will need to retrain as technology reshapes what they do. So universities do need to open up to adults through modular lifelong learning, and we would suggest that needs to be through lifelong skills grants, not simply loans.
They also need to work hand in hand with further education, college with credits that transfer between them. And they need to turn British research into businesses that stay in Britain. Yes, I certainly will.
10:55
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Forgive me. For diagnosing the problem excellently. I mean, you're detailing all the issues. I mean, personally, I don't want to go back too far, but we do have to think about the role the Lib Dems played in the coalition government and the decision to go back on their pledge not to raise fees and, of course, raise it to £9,000. But the budget this afternoon is not just about spending money, it's also about raising money to pay for policies.
So a range of policies.
So a range of policies.
10:56
10:56
10:56
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the member for his intervention. Actually, a lot of the the the interventions that I've suggested on the university side are cost neutral and around restructuring. Restructuring. To conclude. So to conclude. Mr.. Sorry, I have three questions for the minister. First, will the government update its impact analysis to reflect this year's fall in international recruitment and publish the effect by region and type of institution on the of the international student levy before the finance Bill is debated. Second, will it think again on special administration before rather than after a university fails? And third, will the government commit to working with the sector to end the pensions penalty on post 92 universities?
Universities did not get to this position overnight. They will not recover overnight, but today's budget is a chance to stop the managed decline and start on the transformation. And I hope the Chancellor takes it. Thank you.
Universities did not get to this position overnight. They will not recover overnight, but today's budget is a chance to stop the managed decline and start on the transformation. And I hope the Chancellor takes it. Thank you.
10:59
10:59
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, Miss Vaz, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and also to be responding on behalf of His Majesty's official opposition. I want to start by thanking the honourable member for Sheffield Central for tabling this important debate and for everybody's contributions this morning. And just to pick out a couple of things I have to say, Madam Chair, I didn't expect to find quite so much agreement for Margaret Thatcher's education policies this morning, and I'm very grateful to the member for Edinburgh, South West and Camborne and Redruth in particular for their their positivity around that.
But I also want to just pick up on the points that were made by the honourable member for Southampton, Itchen, who, although I think we are the same age, started at Southampton University a year after me and we have many mutual friends from both of our times at university, but I do think it's worth noting that the the changes that we experienced as that first cohort that had to pay fees and take on a loan was entirely because of the 1998 Teaching and Higher Education Act that was snuck through by the new Labour government and I think conveniently forgotten about in a time where social media didn't exist.
And I dread to think the the furore that there would have been today had students realize what was going to happen to them. But I, for one aged 16, thought I was going to university for free, and by 20 by the age of 18, that was. That was not the case. I'm going to make some progress on my speech, if I may, but I think it's just worth putting that on the record. And I don't want to burst the bubble of the member for Sunderland Central. But Plymouth has also seen dentistry offered as a subject, and unfortunately, only about 5% of the students are actually from Plymouth and nearly all of them leave the area.
So are we absolutely need more dental students in terms of it being a mechanism for solving that crisis so far, I think that's not quite the case. That's a whole other debate for another time, but I just want to highlight that that isn't always the solution that we hope it will be. But in response to the topic itself, I want to start by putting on record that the opposition recognised the enormous value and significance of the UK's university sector, both in terms of its economic and societal contribution. The National Centre for Universities and Businesses argued that the UK's universities are one of our greatest strategic assets.
They educate the future workforce, conduct world leading research and act as anchor institutions in regions much of which we've heard today, supporting businesses, driving innovation and empowering local growth economically. Universities contribute around £265 billion to the UK economy and support over 800,000 jobs. The return on investment is also staggering for every £1 of public money invested in the higher education sector across the country, £14 is put back into the economy. In addition, there is no doubt that universities are some of the most critical engines of growth and prosperity at a regional level, and as a proud Member of Parliament for South West Devon, I know the huge role the sector plays.
Across the South West we have ten universities, several of which have been mentioned today, with over 200,000 students employing over 31,000 people and contributing £7.8 billion of gross output. Indeed, Plymouth, Marjon University, Plymouth Arts University and the University of Plymouth are certainly playing their part and unfortunately, I'm meeting with the vice Chancellor of Plymouth University tomorrow on this very topic, so cannot add any more at the moment. But I know that he is wanting to talk to me because of the struggles they are facing. Notwithstanding this vital economic contribution, it would be wrong to purely look at universities in terms of their economic output.
Universities help shape the society we all live in. They equip young people with the skills needed to navigate an increasingly fractured society. They teach young people to think critically and outside the box, skills that I undoubtedly believe will be essential in a Britain where communities are more divided than ever, and one where the spectre of the AI revolution looms over us all. It is beyond clear that universities are going to play a central role in Britain for decades to come, and that is our view. But we are not blind to some of the big challenges the sector always faces.
Also faces. It is no secret that there are real and imminent challenges facing the UK's university sector. A report from the House of Commons Education Select Committee for May 2026 has gone so far as to claim that the sector is facing a financial crisis that now poses a real risk of institutional insolvency. The report lays bare the terrible state of some universities finances, with the office for students fearing that 24 providers could face insolvency within the next 12 months. Against this uncertain backdrop, universities are being forced to close courses and sell buildings to cut costs and make efficiencies.
Some of the difficulties the universities are facing is explained well in the Policy Exchange report. Tarnished Towers. They argue that high inflation, pension pressures and a reduction in international student numbers have created a perfect storm for our universities. And this all seems to be compounded by a lack of action from the government thus far. A universities UK report from February 26th finds that government policy decisions have led to an estimated £3.7 billion reduction in funding to higher education providers in England from 2024 25 to 20 29 to 30. Their analysis shows the impact of government immigration policy, but also the damaging shock the sector received through increased pension and employment costs, which has been mentioned already.
This morning. In 2020, Keir Starmer made scrapping university tuition fees the centrepiece of his leadership campaign. Indeed, the previous education secretary even had the audacity to claim that graduates would pay less under a Labour government. In June 2023, students right across the country felt betrayed and let down by the government's broken promises. When the previous education secretary announced in November 2024 that Labour would push up tuition fees for students. In that debate, the shadow education secretary said that she would be willing to work with the government to support universities and students, but as of yet, His Majesty's opposition are yet to be invited to work constructively with government on this.
Indeed, we have heard very little from the government about what they want to do at all, so I hope the minister can shed some light on the government's plans to support our university sector. This morning, the new Education Secretary has been very keen to talk about her plans to reform technical education. She has come to this House to give a statement on that particular issue. But aside from that, we have heard little else. The new Education Secretary has not come to this House to clarify when the government will bring the legislation they promised at the King's Speech forward to support children and families with Send.
And the Education Secretary is yet to come to the House to talk to some of the challenges facing the university sector. Now, I'm grateful, as I've already said to the honourable member for Sheffield Central for this debate, as it gives His Majesty's opposition some time to ask the Minister, who I respect very much, some important questions in relation to higher education funding. Firstly, can the Minister shed any light on how the government intends to support the 24 institutions that the office for students claimed were at risk of insolvency in the 12 months from May 2026?
Secondly, can she confirm whether the government intend to make any changes to plan two student loans? Thirdly, can the minister tell this House whether they have had any meetings with institutions which might be facing significant financial uncertainty over the course of the remainder of this academic year? And lastly, whether the government will rule out pushing up tuition fees for students again before the end of this Parliament. These are very important questions which His Majesty's opposition, the higher education sector and most important students right across the country need answers on. Universities need them to begin to develop long term financial plans and.
Students need to have certainty about their finances and indeed the stability of the institution they are studying at and the course that they are taking. Regrettably, Madam Chair, I hold little hope that the government has answers to these questions. Given the lack of focus the new Education Secretary seems to have shown to higher education since coming into office. Of course, this is in stark contrast to the official opposition, who have outlined detailed and fully costed plans to lower interest on planned two student loans and have also set out reforms to the university sector to ensure the government stop funding dead end university courses.
All of this is part of our new deal for young people. To conclude, Madam Chair, I want to reiterate His Majesty's opposition firm belief in the strength and value of the UK's higher education sector. It is indeed a high strategic, a huge strategic asset. However, we must be honest and recognise it faces huge challenges over the course of the next decade. The digital revolution means universities need to rethink how they prepare students to get into the world of work, and they must also be open to accepting the fact that they must adapt to stay solvent in the new economic reality.
Governments should be there to guide the sector through these turbulent headwinds, but we have seen little indication that they are there to do that. The new Education Secretary urgently needs to shed some light on what steps they will take to address some deeply concerning reports about the financial health of our institutions. Madam chair, with the budget a little over an hour away, I hope the Chancellor will be setting out some steps to solve these problems, but I hold out little hope today.
But I also want to just pick up on the points that were made by the honourable member for Southampton, Itchen, who, although I think we are the same age, started at Southampton University a year after me and we have many mutual friends from both of our times at university, but I do think it's worth noting that the the changes that we experienced as that first cohort that had to pay fees and take on a loan was entirely because of the 1998 Teaching and Higher Education Act that was snuck through by the new Labour government and I think conveniently forgotten about in a time where social media didn't exist.
And I dread to think the the furore that there would have been today had students realize what was going to happen to them. But I, for one aged 16, thought I was going to university for free, and by 20 by the age of 18, that was. That was not the case. I'm going to make some progress on my speech, if I may, but I think it's just worth putting that on the record. And I don't want to burst the bubble of the member for Sunderland Central. But Plymouth has also seen dentistry offered as a subject, and unfortunately, only about 5% of the students are actually from Plymouth and nearly all of them leave the area.
So are we absolutely need more dental students in terms of it being a mechanism for solving that crisis so far, I think that's not quite the case. That's a whole other debate for another time, but I just want to highlight that that isn't always the solution that we hope it will be. But in response to the topic itself, I want to start by putting on record that the opposition recognised the enormous value and significance of the UK's university sector, both in terms of its economic and societal contribution. The National Centre for Universities and Businesses argued that the UK's universities are one of our greatest strategic assets.
They educate the future workforce, conduct world leading research and act as anchor institutions in regions much of which we've heard today, supporting businesses, driving innovation and empowering local growth economically. Universities contribute around £265 billion to the UK economy and support over 800,000 jobs. The return on investment is also staggering for every £1 of public money invested in the higher education sector across the country, £14 is put back into the economy. In addition, there is no doubt that universities are some of the most critical engines of growth and prosperity at a regional level, and as a proud Member of Parliament for South West Devon, I know the huge role the sector plays.
Across the South West we have ten universities, several of which have been mentioned today, with over 200,000 students employing over 31,000 people and contributing £7.8 billion of gross output. Indeed, Plymouth, Marjon University, Plymouth Arts University and the University of Plymouth are certainly playing their part and unfortunately, I'm meeting with the vice Chancellor of Plymouth University tomorrow on this very topic, so cannot add any more at the moment. But I know that he is wanting to talk to me because of the struggles they are facing. Notwithstanding this vital economic contribution, it would be wrong to purely look at universities in terms of their economic output.
Universities help shape the society we all live in. They equip young people with the skills needed to navigate an increasingly fractured society. They teach young people to think critically and outside the box, skills that I undoubtedly believe will be essential in a Britain where communities are more divided than ever, and one where the spectre of the AI revolution looms over us all. It is beyond clear that universities are going to play a central role in Britain for decades to come, and that is our view. But we are not blind to some of the big challenges the sector always faces.
Also faces. It is no secret that there are real and imminent challenges facing the UK's university sector. A report from the House of Commons Education Select Committee for May 2026 has gone so far as to claim that the sector is facing a financial crisis that now poses a real risk of institutional insolvency. The report lays bare the terrible state of some universities finances, with the office for students fearing that 24 providers could face insolvency within the next 12 months. Against this uncertain backdrop, universities are being forced to close courses and sell buildings to cut costs and make efficiencies.
Some of the difficulties the universities are facing is explained well in the Policy Exchange report. Tarnished Towers. They argue that high inflation, pension pressures and a reduction in international student numbers have created a perfect storm for our universities. And this all seems to be compounded by a lack of action from the government thus far. A universities UK report from February 26th finds that government policy decisions have led to an estimated £3.7 billion reduction in funding to higher education providers in England from 2024 25 to 20 29 to 30. Their analysis shows the impact of government immigration policy, but also the damaging shock the sector received through increased pension and employment costs, which has been mentioned already.
This morning. In 2020, Keir Starmer made scrapping university tuition fees the centrepiece of his leadership campaign. Indeed, the previous education secretary even had the audacity to claim that graduates would pay less under a Labour government. In June 2023, students right across the country felt betrayed and let down by the government's broken promises. When the previous education secretary announced in November 2024 that Labour would push up tuition fees for students. In that debate, the shadow education secretary said that she would be willing to work with the government to support universities and students, but as of yet, His Majesty's opposition are yet to be invited to work constructively with government on this.
Indeed, we have heard very little from the government about what they want to do at all, so I hope the minister can shed some light on the government's plans to support our university sector. This morning, the new Education Secretary has been very keen to talk about her plans to reform technical education. She has come to this House to give a statement on that particular issue. But aside from that, we have heard little else. The new Education Secretary has not come to this House to clarify when the government will bring the legislation they promised at the King's Speech forward to support children and families with Send.
And the Education Secretary is yet to come to the House to talk to some of the challenges facing the university sector. Now, I'm grateful, as I've already said to the honourable member for Sheffield Central for this debate, as it gives His Majesty's opposition some time to ask the Minister, who I respect very much, some important questions in relation to higher education funding. Firstly, can the Minister shed any light on how the government intends to support the 24 institutions that the office for students claimed were at risk of insolvency in the 12 months from May 2026?
Secondly, can she confirm whether the government intend to make any changes to plan two student loans? Thirdly, can the minister tell this House whether they have had any meetings with institutions which might be facing significant financial uncertainty over the course of the remainder of this academic year? And lastly, whether the government will rule out pushing up tuition fees for students again before the end of this Parliament. These are very important questions which His Majesty's opposition, the higher education sector and most important students right across the country need answers on. Universities need them to begin to develop long term financial plans and.
Students need to have certainty about their finances and indeed the stability of the institution they are studying at and the course that they are taking. Regrettably, Madam Chair, I hold little hope that the government has answers to these questions. Given the lack of focus the new Education Secretary seems to have shown to higher education since coming into office. Of course, this is in stark contrast to the official opposition, who have outlined detailed and fully costed plans to lower interest on planned two student loans and have also set out reforms to the university sector to ensure the government stop funding dead end university courses.
All of this is part of our new deal for young people. To conclude, Madam Chair, I want to reiterate His Majesty's opposition firm belief in the strength and value of the UK's higher education sector. It is indeed a high strategic, a huge strategic asset. However, we must be honest and recognise it faces huge challenges over the course of the next decade. The digital revolution means universities need to rethink how they prepare students to get into the world of work, and they must also be open to accepting the fact that they must adapt to stay solvent in the new economic reality.
Governments should be there to guide the sector through these turbulent headwinds, but we have seen little indication that they are there to do that. The new Education Secretary urgently needs to shed some light on what steps they will take to address some deeply concerning reports about the financial health of our institutions. Madam chair, with the budget a little over an hour away, I hope the Chancellor will be setting out some steps to solve these problems, but I hold out little hope today.
11:16
11:16
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, Miss Vaz. It's an honour to share a to to be under your chairship. Apologies. And I very much congratulate the honourable member for Sheffield Central on securing this really important debate. She is a passionate advocate for this these issues. She has chaired the Appg for students and has regularly raised issues related to to universities and students. And I think we heard from her speech earlier how how thoughtful and knowledgeable she is on these issues. I also wanted to thank my honourable friend from Colchester for for her characteristically thoughtful speech, and I think she called for a wider debate and discussion and focus on these issues.
And I think we've had a very important debate here today. We've heard the range of expertise within this, this chamber and within the the our Parliament from lecturers to to those who have real experience of working within within universities and a range of different decades that everyone went to university. I can't believe that anyone in this, this room looks old enough to have gone to university under Margaret Thatcher. And we should be really rightly proud of our world class higher education sector, a sector that remains, by any objective metric, one of our nation's greatest exports and a global beacon of intellectual excellence.
We heard from my honourable friend from Ealing, Central and Acton
And I think we've had a very important debate here today. We've heard the range of expertise within this, this chamber and within the the our Parliament from lecturers to to those who have real experience of working within within universities and a range of different decades that everyone went to university. I can't believe that anyone in this, this room looks old enough to have gone to university under Margaret Thatcher. And we should be really rightly proud of our world class higher education sector, a sector that remains, by any objective metric, one of our nation's greatest exports and a global beacon of intellectual excellence.
We heard from my honourable friend from Ealing, Central and Acton
11:21
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Acton that our university sector in the UK includes four of the world's top ten universities, all of which we can be very proud. It contributes over £265 billion into the into the UK and supports over 750,000 jobs. And in my work as schools minister, I get to see directly the contribution that universities make to places and how integrated they are into into local innovation, support and access. And I have spent quite a bit of time in Sheffield and seen the the contribution that both Sheffield University and Sheffield Hallam make to the local area, whether that is their pioneering work around opening up participation to university or some of the wider research they're doing, the Sheffield Innovation Spine, the work Sheffield Hallam is doing around early years, and the Children's University, and the work that Sheffield University is doing around adult social care.
And I also, as the my honourable friend from Sunderland Central was talking. I was reflecting on two weeks ago being in Sunderland, where we're working on a North East mission and the role that Sunderland University was playing as an absolute partner to to supporting wider outcomes for children in the area. It's why the government are committed to maintaining a world class higher education sector that delivers for students, our society and the and the economy. And we have. We, of course, recognise the sector's financial environment is challenging. We. The sector is rightly independent from government, with providers managing their finances and ensuring their business models provide long term sustainability.
But I recognise the the long term challenges that that many members have talked about, the strain that we saw over the last decade, including the legacy of seven years of frozen tuition fees and universities having to to deal with that. And, and the issues that that that has caused. And we of course.
And I also, as the my honourable friend from Sunderland Central was talking. I was reflecting on two weeks ago being in Sunderland, where we're working on a North East mission and the role that Sunderland University was playing as an absolute partner to to supporting wider outcomes for children in the area. It's why the government are committed to maintaining a world class higher education sector that delivers for students, our society and the and the economy. And we have. We, of course, recognise the sector's financial environment is challenging. We. The sector is rightly independent from government, with providers managing their finances and ensuring their business models provide long term sustainability.
But I recognise the the long term challenges that that many members have talked about, the strain that we saw over the last decade, including the legacy of seven years of frozen tuition fees and universities having to to deal with that. And, and the issues that that that has caused. And we of course.
11:25
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Yeah. No, I know she's really passionate about these subjects and she's done excellent work. Her department with DWP on the NEETs phenomenon. I just wondered if she might be able to have a word with Treasury colleagues, a statistic. My hon. Friend from Sheffield raised was that the UK's bottom of OECD countries for proportion of public spend within the overall university tertiary spend expenditure. I just wondered if she could have a word with them to nudge that upwards, because that's a statistic we're not so proud of.
11:25
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Of course, I'm always supportive of greater funding for education and young people, but I was actually just going to go on to, to talk about some of the the changes the government are making to, to support sustainability. So this is why we have, after being frozen for eight years, increased tuition fee caps in line with inflation for 2025 2026 will increase them once again in line with forecast inflation in 2026 to 27 and to and in 2027 to 28, and then legislate when parliamentary time allows to increase tuition fees fee caps automatically for future academic years.
This is over the coming year. 6 billion worth of safeguarded index increase in income, underpinned by the government, which will make a real difference. My hon. Friend from Sheffield Central asked about the vision the government has for universities, and we have set out an ambitious programme of reform through the post 16 Education and Skills White Paper, with a clear vision for a more sustainable and collaborative higher education sector. We want providers to be clear about their distinctive roles, but to be working, working in collaboration, in place. And she also mentioned the importance of research. And my hon.
Friend talked about the the pioneering research of East Anglia around prostate cancer and research is a critical role that universities play. The government are investing a record £86 billion in R&D from 2026 27 to 20 29 to 30, and as part of this, Ukri will deliver an expected £38.6 billion of research investment, rising to nearly 10 billion per year by the end of that period. In the Department for education, we're working closely with it to deliver the white papers commitments, which include research, funding reform and improvements to research cost, grant cost recovery. And we also heard, I think, from from almost all of the people that spoke about the importance of opening up access around outcomes for young people and ensuring that that we that young people who want to go to university and pursue a university route always have that access open to them.
And I have to say that that is why we do not support the conservatives proposals that would pull up the drawbridge, because if it's about reducing young people going to university, we know it is young people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, who will be the ones that don't get that opportunity. Of course.
This is over the coming year. 6 billion worth of safeguarded index increase in income, underpinned by the government, which will make a real difference. My hon. Friend from Sheffield Central asked about the vision the government has for universities, and we have set out an ambitious programme of reform through the post 16 Education and Skills White Paper, with a clear vision for a more sustainable and collaborative higher education sector. We want providers to be clear about their distinctive roles, but to be working, working in collaboration, in place. And she also mentioned the importance of research. And my hon.
Friend talked about the the pioneering research of East Anglia around prostate cancer and research is a critical role that universities play. The government are investing a record £86 billion in R&D from 2026 27 to 20 29 to 30, and as part of this, Ukri will deliver an expected £38.6 billion of research investment, rising to nearly 10 billion per year by the end of that period. In the Department for education, we're working closely with it to deliver the white papers commitments, which include research, funding reform and improvements to research cost, grant cost recovery. And we also heard, I think, from from almost all of the people that spoke about the importance of opening up access around outcomes for young people and ensuring that that we that young people who want to go to university and pursue a university route always have that access open to them.
And I have to say that that is why we do not support the conservatives proposals that would pull up the drawbridge, because if it's about reducing young people going to university, we know it is young people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, who will be the ones that don't get that opportunity. Of course.
11:31
11:32
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Sir, thank you very much for a very, very helpful response. And I think that that outlines a very clear strategy to try and address the issues of of all of the Minister for I ask a specific question of the minister. Would she consider outlining the strategy with the relevant minister back home? Thank you.
11:32
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you very much. And of course, we I regularly talk to colleagues across the four nations, and I know my right hon. Friend the Minister for universities does the same, and I think it's very important that we have that that spirit of learning. But yeah, so I think it's the those those different routes are deeply connected. And we think it's really important that that relationship between higher education and Fe on, on supporting outcomes for young people. But also as we think about how we respond to changing nature of education, the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement and long term flexible learning, because we want people to have access for throughout their lives.
I've got I've got to make progress. The lifelong learning entitlement will transform the student finance system, giving people flexible access to high quality education throughout their working lives. And from January 2027, for the first time, learners will be able to use their entitlement to fund individual modules as well as full courses at levels 4 to 6 at colleges, universities and independent providers. A number of members, including my hon. Friend from Sheffield Central and Edinburgh South West, raised the issue of international students and support for international students, and I just want to be really clear that international students are welcome in the UK.
They enrich our campuses and communities and become ambassadors for this country long after they graduate. They make a vital contribution. 12.7 billion in fee income in 2023 to 24. Almost a quarter of a sector income as as as others have said, and the new international education strategy confirms our commitment to welcoming students who meet the requirements to study here. And there was also a range of questions about the international student levy. The. The levy is part of a wider package that also includes inflation linked fee rises, and really important to stress that every penny it raises will be reinvested in higher education and skills, including new maintenance grants for disadvantaged students that that many have have raised, as well as some of the barriers we see around costs of of studying.
So we know how important those are. It's simple and proportionate. A flat £925 fee per international student per year from 2028 to 29, paid for by providers with an allowance of 220 students each. And we listen to the sector. The flat fee is equivalent to around 4% of international fee income, down from the 6% first provided. And to answer the question that I've been asked by my honourable friend from Southampton and others, we will publish an updated impact assessment ahead of the finance Bill. I. I had a number of questions about the pressure many, many students are facing, including from my hon.
Friends across Cornwall, Camborne and Redruth and Truro and Falmouth, and we know that cost of living pressures have hit students hard. The previous government removed maintenance grants and the real term value of loan support for students fell by almost 20% between 2020 and 2024. And we're taking action to put this right. We are introducing a targeted maintenance grant from 2028 to 2029, up to £1,000 a year for disadvantaged students on top of their loan, putting cash in their pockets without adding to their debt. The new grants will support students from low income households . Studying full time courses align with government's missions and industrial strategy, and we're future proofing maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every year, with the biggest cash increase going to students from the lowest income families.
And I move, I'll move on to the final point. But because of time, my honourable friend from Southampton raised the issues of student loans, and I wanted to address that in the time that I had remaining the chance to study in higher education for those who want to and who have the ability changes lives. As we've heard across the chamber today, we're determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations, and we can't lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling that and levelling the playing field at the point of access.
They remove that upfront financial barrier to study and enable students to repay when they're earning. We inherited a student loan system that's not working as fairly as it should, and we recognise that some students and graduates feel the impact of that. We're making the tough but necessary decisions to deliver a fairer and more sustainable system. We've increased the plan to thresholds in 2025, its first increase since 2021, and we raised the plan two repayment threshold again in April to £29,385, and we've capped interest rates for plan two and plan three loans at 6% for the academic year 2020 627.
The whole range of very important discussions that came up today. I know that myself.
I've got I've got to make progress. The lifelong learning entitlement will transform the student finance system, giving people flexible access to high quality education throughout their working lives. And from January 2027, for the first time, learners will be able to use their entitlement to fund individual modules as well as full courses at levels 4 to 6 at colleges, universities and independent providers. A number of members, including my hon. Friend from Sheffield Central and Edinburgh South West, raised the issue of international students and support for international students, and I just want to be really clear that international students are welcome in the UK.
They enrich our campuses and communities and become ambassadors for this country long after they graduate. They make a vital contribution. 12.7 billion in fee income in 2023 to 24. Almost a quarter of a sector income as as as others have said, and the new international education strategy confirms our commitment to welcoming students who meet the requirements to study here. And there was also a range of questions about the international student levy. The. The levy is part of a wider package that also includes inflation linked fee rises, and really important to stress that every penny it raises will be reinvested in higher education and skills, including new maintenance grants for disadvantaged students that that many have have raised, as well as some of the barriers we see around costs of of studying.
So we know how important those are. It's simple and proportionate. A flat £925 fee per international student per year from 2028 to 29, paid for by providers with an allowance of 220 students each. And we listen to the sector. The flat fee is equivalent to around 4% of international fee income, down from the 6% first provided. And to answer the question that I've been asked by my honourable friend from Southampton and others, we will publish an updated impact assessment ahead of the finance Bill. I. I had a number of questions about the pressure many, many students are facing, including from my hon.
Friends across Cornwall, Camborne and Redruth and Truro and Falmouth, and we know that cost of living pressures have hit students hard. The previous government removed maintenance grants and the real term value of loan support for students fell by almost 20% between 2020 and 2024. And we're taking action to put this right. We are introducing a targeted maintenance grant from 2028 to 2029, up to £1,000 a year for disadvantaged students on top of their loan, putting cash in their pockets without adding to their debt. The new grants will support students from low income households . Studying full time courses align with government's missions and industrial strategy, and we're future proofing maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every year, with the biggest cash increase going to students from the lowest income families.
And I move, I'll move on to the final point. But because of time, my honourable friend from Southampton raised the issues of student loans, and I wanted to address that in the time that I had remaining the chance to study in higher education for those who want to and who have the ability changes lives. As we've heard across the chamber today, we're determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations, and we can't lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling that and levelling the playing field at the point of access.
They remove that upfront financial barrier to study and enable students to repay when they're earning. We inherited a student loan system that's not working as fairly as it should, and we recognise that some students and graduates feel the impact of that. We're making the tough but necessary decisions to deliver a fairer and more sustainable system. We've increased the plan to thresholds in 2025, its first increase since 2021, and we raised the plan two repayment threshold again in April to £29,385, and we've capped interest rates for plan two and plan three loans at 6% for the academic year 2020 627.
The whole range of very important discussions that came up today. I know that myself.
11:43
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Order. Order. Order, order. I will call Jon Trickett to move the motion, and I will then call the minister to respond. I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate, and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30 minute debate. Order, order! Jon Trickett to move.
11:43
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
It's a great pleasure to see you in the chair, and I'm sure you'll be very firm. Firm with us, but very fair as well. And it's a special privilege to see the minister in her place. I know that Barnsley, which is she's very proud to represent, does have a strong rugby league tradition too. So let me just say why I think this department is is so important. And it's a great privilege to be able to speak on this sport. As we know, there are two codes in rugby. Rugby union is very familiar and presents great sporting spectacle.
Rugby League Two offers great moments of sporting prowess and I remember vividly attending the probably the most iconic rugby league final ever in 1968 with my dad and granddad at Wembley, when he felt the whole of the north of England came down to invade London, quite rightly bringing our civilisation to the South. It was one of those great days when the rain never stopped. He hadn't stopped for several days. The pitch was a mudbath. It was literally covered in mud and water and very exciting. In the last two minutes it was 1110 to Leeds. Of course, in those days I was supporting Leeds as somebody who was born there against Wakefield, which I am a proud MP and have been for 30 years.
The score was 1110 and in the last minute a penalty was given to Wakefield right under the post. You would expect that to be converted by a great rugby league player, Don Fox. Coming from a great rugby league family born in my constituency, but the weather was atrocious. Everybody turned their back because they couldn't bear to watch. Wakefield supporters hoping to hear the victory and Leeds supporters fearing what might happen. It was an amazing moment and I'll never forget it. But he missed. He missed the penalty but that doesn't pay any disrespect to the Fox family, who were brilliant.
But of course it meant that Leeds were victors and it's something which is fondly remembered . I am. I am sure I am the only member of Parliament who was there in that great sporting event. So rugby league does offer great spectacle, but it has been the subject of of really being treated as a second in in a way which hasn't really been fully appropriate. And I think I fear for the future unless we can correct things. Let me just briefly remind the House, I will give way to my honourable friend.
Rugby League Two offers great moments of sporting prowess and I remember vividly attending the probably the most iconic rugby league final ever in 1968 with my dad and granddad at Wembley, when he felt the whole of the north of England came down to invade London, quite rightly bringing our civilisation to the South. It was one of those great days when the rain never stopped. He hadn't stopped for several days. The pitch was a mudbath. It was literally covered in mud and water and very exciting. In the last two minutes it was 1110 to Leeds. Of course, in those days I was supporting Leeds as somebody who was born there against Wakefield, which I am a proud MP and have been for 30 years.
The score was 1110 and in the last minute a penalty was given to Wakefield right under the post. You would expect that to be converted by a great rugby league player, Don Fox. Coming from a great rugby league family born in my constituency, but the weather was atrocious. Everybody turned their back because they couldn't bear to watch. Wakefield supporters hoping to hear the victory and Leeds supporters fearing what might happen. It was an amazing moment and I'll never forget it. But he missed. He missed the penalty but that doesn't pay any disrespect to the Fox family, who were brilliant.
But of course it meant that Leeds were victors and it's something which is fondly remembered . I am. I am sure I am the only member of Parliament who was there in that great sporting event. So rugby league does offer great spectacle, but it has been the subject of of really being treated as a second in in a way which hasn't really been fully appropriate. And I think I fear for the future unless we can correct things. Let me just briefly remind the House, I will give way to my honourable friend.
11:43
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thanks very much for giving way, and congratulations for bringing this really important debate to the to Westminster Hall. My constituency, Blythe and Ashton, is well renowned for some of the world's world class sportsmen. It's commonly said, as far as your show down the pit shaft and world class sportsmen will emerge. But I wonder if my honourable friend, with his great knowledge and wisdom of rugby league in rugby league, being a traditionally working class sport, I wonder if my honourable friend can say why. Despite many opportunities, rugby league hasn't flourished in areas like mine in working class Northumberland.
11:43
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. He's right that rugby league is a sport which grew up in working class communities, especially in mining communities, and it is surprising that in his constituency it hasn't taken root. But when you consider the discrimination which rugby league has suffered from over the years, it maybe isn't so surprising. And one of the things I'm going to try to argue is we need to do more to develop the sport across the whole country, but especially in communities like his. He's right, too, that whenever there was a player injured in Featherstone in my patch, they would go to the pit head and shout down, send us up another forward or whatever, and one would emerge quickly to get changed and get on to the pitch.
It was very, very part of the mining tradition. But let me just remind the House that I will give way. I want to make some progress though.
It was very, very part of the mining tradition. But let me just remind the House that I will give way. I want to make some progress though.
11:43
11:43
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
For bringing this forward. Rugby union was my game. I apologize, the honourable gentleman, but rugby league has a very magnificent, transformative impact across the United Kingdom, the beating heart of the towns , providing the vital structure, the mental health support and community pride for young people. Yet they're all facing a financial squeeze. So does the honourable gentleman agree that government funding for rugby league must extend to all of this to secure the sport's future, and to enhance funding strategy to protect these invaluable communities assets from the financial ruin that they face.
11:43
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
The honourable member makes a very important point, and I agree with the point he's making, but I was just going to develop a little bit about rugby league itself in the areas where, which I'm most familiar. Rugby league can be the most important agency for social cohesion. It gives something that and sport in general. But in rugby league I'm talking about today, sport can provide something which brings everybody together wherever different points of view or life experiences that they may have. In Featherstone, in my constituency, where Featherstone Rovers has played for for decades, there is a massive amount of pride in the fact that we do have that team.
I'm going to come to the difficulties which he's facing at the present time, and hope we can find a way forward. But let me just remind the House that the BBC used to cover more or less weekly on what was called Grandstand Rugby League, and there was a very famous commentator, Eddie Waring. Most people in this room are probably not old enough to remember him, but I do. Well, so familiar was rugby league in those times because of BBC coverage , that many of Eddie Waring's favourite expressions were well known across the whole country, and Mike Yarwood was a great mimic of that time.
He used to talk with with Eddie's accent, which I can't do, but he used to talk about up and Over, which was one of the ways you could kick a ball, but more importantly, when, as often happened, somebody was sent off. His favourite expression was what? He's been sent for an early bath, and I'm very much hoping that I won't be sent for an early bath today by you, Miss Ratner, in the in the chair today. But look, the thing is, it was a it is ought to be a national sport, nationally recognized. I'll come to the discrimination in a second or two and the problems which we've got with television.
But let me just remind the House that if you want to watch TV on TV now. Rugby league, you would have to go to two separate pay per view channels. It would cost £61 a month, which is 5% of the total income of a person who's living on the minimum wage. It is being it's been people being priced out of the spectacle. And that is a great shame because it's leading to the atrophy of the sport across the communities where rugby league ought to be played, and it's stopping us from spreading it further. And I'm going to come back to that in a second or two.
Rugby league was a product of the class system which operated in sport in those days where the so-called gentlemen who didn't need to be paid would play rugby union. If you were too poor to be able to afford to do that, you couldn't play for rugby union. So rugby league was set up where players could be paid, and that was obviously the start of this rugby league as a code. But the truth is the divisions which existed then continue today and I'm just going to maybe surprise a house with 1 or 2 statistics, which I've identified.
First of all, if you look at the way the honor system has worked, there have been eight separate rugby union players who've received a knighthood only two in rugby league, one of whom was actually knighted for his contributions to charitable giving. The great Kevin Sinfield. But but the truth is, it shows a level of discrimination when you look at the the national squads for rugby union, two thirds or more of all players for rugby union, for the national side, went to public school. I can't find a single player who's paid for the national side, for rugby league who went to public school, and it shows the class divisions which continue.
Surprisingly, after all these years in sport. It's disappointing that in the universities, less than 40 universities have a rugby league side, whereas every single university that I can find does have a rugby union side. And I think that , again, shows that there is something not quite working between the two codes. Now. I think I've referred already to the oh, let me just make one other point. When it came to Covid, as we know, sports were remunerated. But here's an astonishing fact. Rugby union received about £130 million. Rugby league got 10 or £11 million. It was ten times more went into rugby union from Covid.
And you do wonder, I wonder if the House would agree with me whether the people who make these decisions in the civil service went to universities and schools, which did do rugby union but had little comprehension of the importance of rugby league in in areas such as mine. I think that does demonstrate clear discrimination, and I'm hoping that the Labour government will be is aware of that. If it wasn't then it is now because I've brought it to the attention of the minister. Now. I want to then, just to move on to the situation facing Featherstone Rovers.
Wakefield, which I now represent, has the honour of having three separate professional rugby league sides, Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone and Featherstone. Unfortunately, due to bad management has gone into administration and we've been really struggling to try to find a way to bring Rovers back to life. It is the core of the people of Featherstone's identity, as was mining, but mining was stripped away many, many decades ago. But still you will see everywhere references to mining in the township of Featherstone. But. But rugby league Featherstone Rovers is a matter of great pride. The fact that it went bankrupt and there was nobody playing on the pitch at the moment.
It's heartbreaking for so many people that I represent now. Gradually we've been putting together a plan to try to bring Featherstone Rovers back to life and it has been difficult. I spent many, many hours trying to achieve that. But thanks to the appointment recently of a new chief executive at the Rugby league, the RFL, I think we are now making progress such that the RFL has said that they themselves are prepared to help to acquire the assets. Bear in mind there's a stadium, the buildings around the stadium and several acres of land at the back of the stadium.
The administrator has been difficult, but he's come to the view in the end that because it's a community asset, is prepared to sell the house for the asset for slightly less than he might have thought it was worth on a completely commercial sense. So we think it can be acquired for about £1 million now, when Labour was in charge of the council and it has changed hands recently, Labour put aside several million pounds for each of the three rugby league clubs, the £700,000 still unallocated to Featherstone and the council, under its new management, have now said that a substantial part of that, possibly half a million, will be made available to the Rugby League to for them to be able to acquire their assets.
Now here comes the interesting part, because Featherstone, thanks again to the Labour Government. We have something called the pride in place. We've been allocated £20 million over the coming ten years. And so the Board of Pride in Place, which I'm a member of by virtue of being the local MP. So I don't know if I need to declare an interest, but I do, in any event, have said that they are prepared to make a substantial contribution to the acquisition of the of the stadium and the surrounding land. It has been difficult to put this together, but the board are unanimous and led by the chair, Kay Berners-Lee.
We are we are now in a position to say that when the money arrives from the government in the next financial year, that money then can be made available to the RFL. So I have met with the chief executive of the RFL, the new chief executive, a very dynamic and progressive individual, and we have agreed that we want to create a partnership between between the Pip board, Pride in Place board and the RFL to try to take this whole thing forward. It's desperately important because without Featherstone Rovers playing, it's not very easy to create a fixture list because there will be one less team than is required to set up the fixtures.
So there's an urgency about this. I have to say , it's been frustrating dealing with the RFL over the last year and a half on this matter, as they went from one temporary chief executive to another. But now we do have a decision maker in place, and I'm very confident that he is determined to make this happen. And clearly he needs it for all the other teams in the rugby league. Now, all.
I'm going to come to the difficulties which he's facing at the present time, and hope we can find a way forward. But let me just remind the House that the BBC used to cover more or less weekly on what was called Grandstand Rugby League, and there was a very famous commentator, Eddie Waring. Most people in this room are probably not old enough to remember him, but I do. Well, so familiar was rugby league in those times because of BBC coverage , that many of Eddie Waring's favourite expressions were well known across the whole country, and Mike Yarwood was a great mimic of that time.
He used to talk with with Eddie's accent, which I can't do, but he used to talk about up and Over, which was one of the ways you could kick a ball, but more importantly, when, as often happened, somebody was sent off. His favourite expression was what? He's been sent for an early bath, and I'm very much hoping that I won't be sent for an early bath today by you, Miss Ratner, in the in the chair today. But look, the thing is, it was a it is ought to be a national sport, nationally recognized. I'll come to the discrimination in a second or two and the problems which we've got with television.
But let me just remind the House that if you want to watch TV on TV now. Rugby league, you would have to go to two separate pay per view channels. It would cost £61 a month, which is 5% of the total income of a person who's living on the minimum wage. It is being it's been people being priced out of the spectacle. And that is a great shame because it's leading to the atrophy of the sport across the communities where rugby league ought to be played, and it's stopping us from spreading it further. And I'm going to come back to that in a second or two.
Rugby league was a product of the class system which operated in sport in those days where the so-called gentlemen who didn't need to be paid would play rugby union. If you were too poor to be able to afford to do that, you couldn't play for rugby union. So rugby league was set up where players could be paid, and that was obviously the start of this rugby league as a code. But the truth is the divisions which existed then continue today and I'm just going to maybe surprise a house with 1 or 2 statistics, which I've identified.
First of all, if you look at the way the honor system has worked, there have been eight separate rugby union players who've received a knighthood only two in rugby league, one of whom was actually knighted for his contributions to charitable giving. The great Kevin Sinfield. But but the truth is, it shows a level of discrimination when you look at the the national squads for rugby union, two thirds or more of all players for rugby union, for the national side, went to public school. I can't find a single player who's paid for the national side, for rugby league who went to public school, and it shows the class divisions which continue.
Surprisingly, after all these years in sport. It's disappointing that in the universities, less than 40 universities have a rugby league side, whereas every single university that I can find does have a rugby union side. And I think that , again, shows that there is something not quite working between the two codes. Now. I think I've referred already to the oh, let me just make one other point. When it came to Covid, as we know, sports were remunerated. But here's an astonishing fact. Rugby union received about £130 million. Rugby league got 10 or £11 million. It was ten times more went into rugby union from Covid.
And you do wonder, I wonder if the House would agree with me whether the people who make these decisions in the civil service went to universities and schools, which did do rugby union but had little comprehension of the importance of rugby league in in areas such as mine. I think that does demonstrate clear discrimination, and I'm hoping that the Labour government will be is aware of that. If it wasn't then it is now because I've brought it to the attention of the minister. Now. I want to then, just to move on to the situation facing Featherstone Rovers.
Wakefield, which I now represent, has the honour of having three separate professional rugby league sides, Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone and Featherstone. Unfortunately, due to bad management has gone into administration and we've been really struggling to try to find a way to bring Rovers back to life. It is the core of the people of Featherstone's identity, as was mining, but mining was stripped away many, many decades ago. But still you will see everywhere references to mining in the township of Featherstone. But. But rugby league Featherstone Rovers is a matter of great pride. The fact that it went bankrupt and there was nobody playing on the pitch at the moment.
It's heartbreaking for so many people that I represent now. Gradually we've been putting together a plan to try to bring Featherstone Rovers back to life and it has been difficult. I spent many, many hours trying to achieve that. But thanks to the appointment recently of a new chief executive at the Rugby league, the RFL, I think we are now making progress such that the RFL has said that they themselves are prepared to help to acquire the assets. Bear in mind there's a stadium, the buildings around the stadium and several acres of land at the back of the stadium.
The administrator has been difficult, but he's come to the view in the end that because it's a community asset, is prepared to sell the house for the asset for slightly less than he might have thought it was worth on a completely commercial sense. So we think it can be acquired for about £1 million now, when Labour was in charge of the council and it has changed hands recently, Labour put aside several million pounds for each of the three rugby league clubs, the £700,000 still unallocated to Featherstone and the council, under its new management, have now said that a substantial part of that, possibly half a million, will be made available to the Rugby League to for them to be able to acquire their assets.
Now here comes the interesting part, because Featherstone, thanks again to the Labour Government. We have something called the pride in place. We've been allocated £20 million over the coming ten years. And so the Board of Pride in Place, which I'm a member of by virtue of being the local MP. So I don't know if I need to declare an interest, but I do, in any event, have said that they are prepared to make a substantial contribution to the acquisition of the of the stadium and the surrounding land. It has been difficult to put this together, but the board are unanimous and led by the chair, Kay Berners-Lee.
We are we are now in a position to say that when the money arrives from the government in the next financial year, that money then can be made available to the RFL. So I have met with the chief executive of the RFL, the new chief executive, a very dynamic and progressive individual, and we have agreed that we want to create a partnership between between the Pip board, Pride in Place board and the RFL to try to take this whole thing forward. It's desperately important because without Featherstone Rovers playing, it's not very easy to create a fixture list because there will be one less team than is required to set up the fixtures.
So there's an urgency about this. I have to say , it's been frustrating dealing with the RFL over the last year and a half on this matter, as they went from one temporary chief executive to another. But now we do have a decision maker in place, and I'm very confident that he is determined to make this happen. And clearly he needs it for all the other teams in the rugby league. Now, all.
11:43
11:43
11:43
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I thank him for giving way. He's being generous with his time. On the pride in place point I couldn't agree with him more and I commend him for his efforts. With the Pride in Place board, I've done something similar in my constituency Leeds South West and Morley our pride in place. Finally, East board is giving money to Farnley Falcons. It's one of the hearts of our communities. It brings in young people from right across the constituency and further afield. Would he join me in encouraging all those with pride in place boards to give some money to local rugby league clubs?
11:43
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank you very much for his intervention, by the way, many, many years ago, as a building worker plumber, I did lots of work on Morley Labour Rooms, which is probably familiar with to this day, but that's that's completely by the by. And of course, he's right. That pride and place is there to give pride to communities or to reinforce a pride which exists on a new basis, which is bottom up, local people deciding what they need for their communities. And rugby league is part of that. But it needs to come from the community, not from above.
And on the subject of pride in place in Featherstone and I think this applies to others as well. Let me just say this the council, the local council needs to be aware that its rules, its codes don't apply to applied in pace, although they are currently managing the finances because the board itself has to decide its priorities. We have a vision for a town, a sporting, a sporting excellence which will bring together all of the different services, whether it's education, because there's much to do in Featherstone in terms of education or whether it's health services, because there are many people with long term health problems and mental health.
We have a vision for a town built around sporting provision, but which which reaches out to all of the various cultural and health and educational needs which Featherstone people have. All of those people may have different views and experiences in life, but the one thing they have had is Featherstone Rovers, and it's important that that's brought back to Together Again. So our vision is for a renewal of the town, building on its existing pride, and hopefully be a place where people feel extremely proud to live, that they can go and join in the activities, their social and cultural activities as well.
But it requires Featherstone Rovers to be brought back in place. So I think we understand that the RFL can't own the assets forever because the other clubs will be begin to resent it. But the other clubs need to understand that without Featherstone Rovers playing, they will not have a have a functioning league. So I think it is important the RFL do the things which the chief executive said that he wants to do and the Resilience Fund, which the Labour administration put into place for the Council. We've had different figures from the current leadership of the Council.
I believe the £700,000 still left in the kitty and 500,000 will go to the RFL, but the other 200,000 will be needed for some renovations to the existing stadium. So when I've just explained all of that in the background, I think it's been very helpful to me to be able to both speak about rugby league in general, the discrimination which it suffers, and also to speak about the situation in Featherstone. So let me just press the minister who I've already said, I'm delighted to see in her place on three matters.
The first
And on the subject of pride in place in Featherstone and I think this applies to others as well. Let me just say this the council, the local council needs to be aware that its rules, its codes don't apply to applied in pace, although they are currently managing the finances because the board itself has to decide its priorities. We have a vision for a town, a sporting, a sporting excellence which will bring together all of the different services, whether it's education, because there's much to do in Featherstone in terms of education or whether it's health services, because there are many people with long term health problems and mental health.
We have a vision for a town built around sporting provision, but which which reaches out to all of the various cultural and health and educational needs which Featherstone people have. All of those people may have different views and experiences in life, but the one thing they have had is Featherstone Rovers, and it's important that that's brought back to Together Again. So our vision is for a renewal of the town, building on its existing pride, and hopefully be a place where people feel extremely proud to live, that they can go and join in the activities, their social and cultural activities as well.
But it requires Featherstone Rovers to be brought back in place. So I think we understand that the RFL can't own the assets forever because the other clubs will be begin to resent it. But the other clubs need to understand that without Featherstone Rovers playing, they will not have a have a functioning league. So I think it is important the RFL do the things which the chief executive said that he wants to do and the Resilience Fund, which the Labour administration put into place for the Council. We've had different figures from the current leadership of the Council.
I believe the £700,000 still left in the kitty and 500,000 will go to the RFL, but the other 200,000 will be needed for some renovations to the existing stadium. So when I've just explained all of that in the background, I think it's been very helpful to me to be able to both speak about rugby league in general, the discrimination which it suffers, and also to speak about the situation in Featherstone. So let me just press the minister who I've already said, I'm delighted to see in her place on three matters.
The first
11:43
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Out the situation in Featherston. So let me just press the minister who I've already said I'm delighted to see in her place on three matters. The first is, would it be possible for her to have a careful look or the department at the Rugby Football bid for funding to help. We need to develop the. As we've heard just this morning, we need to develop the sport and take it into new areas where. I think there are many people hungry for that kind of sporting experience. All I would ask is for the moment is. She looks carefully at it.
The second thing is, could she take a close interest to ensure that the partnership which I've described between the Pip and the and the Rugby Football League, does proceed at speed because we've got an empty stadium with people all around it saying, what's happened to our team? And then my final point to her is this the problem that rugby league has ? Is that the feedstock. Has been cut off. That is, the ordinary kids watching sport on TV, living in poorer families, and a lot. The rugby league clubs come from quite deprived communities such as Featherstone.
They don't. They're not able to pay for pay for pay for view TV and therefore they don't see their heroes. They don't see the sport, they don't see its code, how it's played and so on. And that, I think is leaves us with a problem. Now, the department does have the power to list sporting events, and it's tragic that the World Cup rugby league, which is isn't seen on terrestrial television. It's disappointing and tragic that that should have happened. Of course, the BBC now is saying, well, we've got a deal where we can play on the radio, but listening to on the radio is not the same as watching your heroes actually on the pitch playing as I did when I was 17 and back at the the match which I just described earlier.
Could the minister have a careful look about whether or not we can get some of these matches listed, so that it's available for communities everywhere to see the great sport, which is rugby league with I. I'm looking forward to hopefully a positive response from the minister. And thank you very much.
The second thing is, could she take a close interest to ensure that the partnership which I've described between the Pip and the and the Rugby Football League, does proceed at speed because we've got an empty stadium with people all around it saying, what's happened to our team? And then my final point to her is this the problem that rugby league has ? Is that the feedstock. Has been cut off. That is, the ordinary kids watching sport on TV, living in poorer families, and a lot. The rugby league clubs come from quite deprived communities such as Featherstone.
They don't. They're not able to pay for pay for pay for view TV and therefore they don't see their heroes. They don't see the sport, they don't see its code, how it's played and so on. And that, I think is leaves us with a problem. Now, the department does have the power to list sporting events, and it's tragic that the World Cup rugby league, which is isn't seen on terrestrial television. It's disappointing and tragic that that should have happened. Of course, the BBC now is saying, well, we've got a deal where we can play on the radio, but listening to on the radio is not the same as watching your heroes actually on the pitch playing as I did when I was 17 and back at the the match which I just described earlier.
Could the minister have a careful look about whether or not we can get some of these matches listed, so that it's available for communities everywhere to see the great sport, which is rugby league with I. I'm looking forward to hopefully a positive response from the minister. And thank you very much.
11:43
11:43
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Thank you. And it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Vaz. I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Normanton and Hemsworth on securing this debate. A near constituency neighbour of mine. As a fellow Yorkshire MP, I know how important rugby league is to his area. I know how much of a champion he is for this sport, both in this place, as he's illustrated this morning and beyond. For over 130 years, rugby league has made a huge contribution to our society. Week in, week out, local people come together to support their clubs, their children's teams and the players.
They are places where thousands of people play sport and get active every week. Now, my hon. Friend spoke passionately about the particular impact of that on post-industrial towns like the ones that we represent. And he's right to say I am very proud to represent Barnsley South in Parliament and we have fantastic grassroots teams in Barnsley, like the Dearne Valley Bulldogs and the Dodworth miners. The Dodworth miners under 12 became the first junior rugby league team ever from Barnsley to win a league and cup double this week, and I'm sure the whole House will join me in congratulating them.
Now we see teams like this all across the north of England, and the vital role they play is reflected in the interest in today's debate. We know that community sport, and especially sports such as rugby league, can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion. The social value generated by community, sport and physical activity is vast, in excess of £122 billion a year, and every pound spent on sport by rugby league community clubs generates a social return of over £4. These figures underscore the vital role that sports such as rugby league can play in driving positive public health and societal outcomes.
And that is why this government believes access to sport should never be determined by your postcode, your background or your gender. I would give way, yes.
They are places where thousands of people play sport and get active every week. Now, my hon. Friend spoke passionately about the particular impact of that on post-industrial towns like the ones that we represent. And he's right to say I am very proud to represent Barnsley South in Parliament and we have fantastic grassroots teams in Barnsley, like the Dearne Valley Bulldogs and the Dodworth miners. The Dodworth miners under 12 became the first junior rugby league team ever from Barnsley to win a league and cup double this week, and I'm sure the whole House will join me in congratulating them.
Now we see teams like this all across the north of England, and the vital role they play is reflected in the interest in today's debate. We know that community sport, and especially sports such as rugby league, can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion. The social value generated by community, sport and physical activity is vast, in excess of £122 billion a year, and every pound spent on sport by rugby league community clubs generates a social return of over £4. These figures underscore the vital role that sports such as rugby league can play in driving positive public health and societal outcomes.
And that is why this government believes access to sport should never be determined by your postcode, your background or your gender. I would give way, yes.
11:43
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
On the question of gender, she is right to raise that. It's fair to say that rugby league in the past, in the dim, distant past, was kind of a male sport. But now there are women's teams all over the country, including universities. But the proud thing is Featherstone Rovers does have one of the most successful women's rugby league teams in the country, and we're very proud of that. So thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to raise it.
11:43
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Is absolutely right. He makes a really important point and that's why Sports Minister, I've set up the Women's Sports Task Force and I'll touch very briefly on women in later on in my contribution. Now, the single biggest thing most likely to get a child active in sport is watching it live. If kids cannot watch their heroes, they are far less likely to pick up a rugby ball. Now the honourable gentleman is a huge champion of his local club, the Featherstone Rovers. Featherstone Rovers has been at the heart of the local community for many years, and the uncertainty since it entered administration has, I know, hit the town hard and I commend the collective efforts of the honourable member, the community and the RFL to revive the club and indeed, I met with the honourable gentleman to discuss this earlier this year.
And as he has spoken about, I understand that Wakefield Council have set out proposals to provide a half £1 million worth of emergency funding match funded by the RFL Resilience Fund, in a bid to get the team back on the field by 2027 under said proposals, the likely scenario is that the RFL will take control of the ground and lease to an ownership group. Now, on the topic of pride in place, funding power is being put in local hands through resident led Featherstone Neighbourhood Board, working with the local council and of course him as the constituency MP.
Whilst spending choices rest locally with that board, I am fully supportive of local communities choosing to use that funding to protect and revitalise vital sporting institutions like Featherstone Rovers, and I will raise this with the relevant MHC. LG Minister . Now I've seen first hand the importance and impact of rugby league, having taken part at the Yorkshire versus Lancashire match at Labour Party conference at Everton Stadium, Everton Stadium and indeed, I was joined by the member for Leeds South West, who's in attendance today, and I am very pleased to report a Yorkshire win, but it was a great opportunity to showcase the sport, to learn more about their work with the Community Integrated Care, a registered charity supporting people with learning disabilities, autism, mental health needs and dementia.
And it was a great opportunity to talk to the RFL and I look forward to meeting them again soon. Now, Sport England has committed 15.7 million to the Rugby League up to 2029 in my hon. Friend's own constituency, that support is already delivering on the ground, funding new facilities at Hemsworth Dragons and pitch maintenance at Rye Croft Hammers. Nationally, we are directing £400 million into upgrading grassroots sports facilities, deliberately prioritising the areas with the highest levels of deprivation and inactivity. Now, my hon. Friend highlighted today the Rfl's bid for funding sport facilities and the community programme.
I, of course, can't make spending commitments today, but I'd be very happy to discuss this further with the honourable gentleman and indeed with the RFL. Now, my honourable friend has made an important point on broadcasting and I have heard his concerns. Of course, the Challenge Cup final remains protected on free to air television under the listed events regime. But I do acknowledge the concerns raised before the World Cup, and the Secretary of State expressed her views that she was disappointed. Of course, there was a last minute agreement that the BBC would carry highlights, but I appreciate the concerns that this has not gone anywhere near as far enough.
We must, of course, help sports rights holders strike the right balance between broadcast revenue and keeping clubs solvent, and ensuring matches remain accessible to the public. Now, on the subject of watching England play this time last year, I was pleased to be cheering on England at Wembley as they played in the ashes. And of course the team are now Down Under competing in the World Cup. I wish them all the very best as they prepare for their final pool game in two days time, but rugby league's value goes well beyond the 80 minutes on the pitch.
Through our 330,000 investment in rugby league cares. Current and former players are in our schools and in our towns, having open, honest conversations with young men about mental health, isolation and loneliness. And that's why my hon. Friend was right to mention the social impact of the sport. And in the summer I visited Castleford Tigers to see rugby league cares in action. I was delighted to go to the home of the Castleford Tigers to meet rugby league cares and men in sheds over the summer, seeing first hand the powerful role of sport, including rugby league plays, in tackling social isolation and loneliness.
Now I have heard his points he's made about honours and these concerns that he has put on the record, and I know the Secretary of State is on the record too, sharing those. We have all witnessed the extraordinary bond between the late, great Rob Burrow and Kevin Sinfield, a reminder of the loyalty, courage and compassion that define rugby league family. And we are seeing the same spirit drive the growth of the women's game through initiatives like rugby's and inspiring expansion of Wheelchair Super League. Now, the Secretary of State recently attended and supported Sinfield during a leg of his endurance run part 7 in 7 challenge, running seven ultra marathons in seven days at Leigh Sports Village in October 2026, just a few weeks ago.
Sinfield runs Raise awareness and funds for motor neurone Disease in honour of his former teammate and close friend, the late Rob burrow. So I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and for standing up so effectively for his community and his sport. I look forward to working with him closely with the RFL in upcoming meeting to ensure rugby league gets fair treatment, support and the long term investment it so richly deserves.
And as he has spoken about, I understand that Wakefield Council have set out proposals to provide a half £1 million worth of emergency funding match funded by the RFL Resilience Fund, in a bid to get the team back on the field by 2027 under said proposals, the likely scenario is that the RFL will take control of the ground and lease to an ownership group. Now, on the topic of pride in place, funding power is being put in local hands through resident led Featherstone Neighbourhood Board, working with the local council and of course him as the constituency MP.
Whilst spending choices rest locally with that board, I am fully supportive of local communities choosing to use that funding to protect and revitalise vital sporting institutions like Featherstone Rovers, and I will raise this with the relevant MHC. LG Minister . Now I've seen first hand the importance and impact of rugby league, having taken part at the Yorkshire versus Lancashire match at Labour Party conference at Everton Stadium, Everton Stadium and indeed, I was joined by the member for Leeds South West, who's in attendance today, and I am very pleased to report a Yorkshire win, but it was a great opportunity to showcase the sport, to learn more about their work with the Community Integrated Care, a registered charity supporting people with learning disabilities, autism, mental health needs and dementia.
And it was a great opportunity to talk to the RFL and I look forward to meeting them again soon. Now, Sport England has committed 15.7 million to the Rugby League up to 2029 in my hon. Friend's own constituency, that support is already delivering on the ground, funding new facilities at Hemsworth Dragons and pitch maintenance at Rye Croft Hammers. Nationally, we are directing £400 million into upgrading grassroots sports facilities, deliberately prioritising the areas with the highest levels of deprivation and inactivity. Now, my hon. Friend highlighted today the Rfl's bid for funding sport facilities and the community programme.
I, of course, can't make spending commitments today, but I'd be very happy to discuss this further with the honourable gentleman and indeed with the RFL. Now, my honourable friend has made an important point on broadcasting and I have heard his concerns. Of course, the Challenge Cup final remains protected on free to air television under the listed events regime. But I do acknowledge the concerns raised before the World Cup, and the Secretary of State expressed her views that she was disappointed. Of course, there was a last minute agreement that the BBC would carry highlights, but I appreciate the concerns that this has not gone anywhere near as far enough.
We must, of course, help sports rights holders strike the right balance between broadcast revenue and keeping clubs solvent, and ensuring matches remain accessible to the public. Now, on the subject of watching England play this time last year, I was pleased to be cheering on England at Wembley as they played in the ashes. And of course the team are now Down Under competing in the World Cup. I wish them all the very best as they prepare for their final pool game in two days time, but rugby league's value goes well beyond the 80 minutes on the pitch.
Through our 330,000 investment in rugby league cares. Current and former players are in our schools and in our towns, having open, honest conversations with young men about mental health, isolation and loneliness. And that's why my hon. Friend was right to mention the social impact of the sport. And in the summer I visited Castleford Tigers to see rugby league cares in action. I was delighted to go to the home of the Castleford Tigers to meet rugby league cares and men in sheds over the summer, seeing first hand the powerful role of sport, including rugby league plays, in tackling social isolation and loneliness.
Now I have heard his points he's made about honours and these concerns that he has put on the record, and I know the Secretary of State is on the record too, sharing those. We have all witnessed the extraordinary bond between the late, great Rob Burrow and Kevin Sinfield, a reminder of the loyalty, courage and compassion that define rugby league family. And we are seeing the same spirit drive the growth of the women's game through initiatives like rugby's and inspiring expansion of Wheelchair Super League. Now, the Secretary of State recently attended and supported Sinfield during a leg of his endurance run part 7 in 7 challenge, running seven ultra marathons in seven days at Leigh Sports Village in October 2026, just a few weeks ago.
Sinfield runs Raise awareness and funds for motor neurone Disease in honour of his former teammate and close friend, the late Rob burrow. So I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and for standing up so effectively for his community and his sport. I look forward to working with him closely with the RFL in upcoming meeting to ensure rugby league gets fair treatment, support and the long term investment it so richly deserves.
11:43
14:30
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I beg to move that this House has considered sentencing in cases of careless and dangerous driving involving death, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr. Lowell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, although I cannot honestly say that it is a pleasure to do so. We are here because people have lost their lives on our roads. Families have lost children, parents, partners and friends, and too many are left feeling that the justice system has not reflected the enormity of their loss. This debate is about accountability. Public confidence, and whether the law does enough to punish those responsible and deter others from making the same devastating choices.
I want to begin, Mr. Lowell, with the tragic case of my constituent, Keeley Morgan, a 15 year old girl whose life was cut short while crossing the road in Cardiff. She was a much loved daughter and a cherished granddaughter, sister and friend with so much to look forward to. On the 1st of May 2023, Keeley was struck by a car while crossing at a pedestrian crossing in Cairo in my constituency, and she died at the scene. The court heard that the driver was travelling above the speed limit, had been driving erratically and showing off, and had removed the vehicle's black box to invalidate his insurance.
The judge described him as, quote, an irresponsible show off. He received 16 months imprisonment for causing death by careless driving and 11 months for causing death by driving while uninsured to be served concurrently. He was also disqualified from driving for two years and eight months. Yet he was released after serving only around six and a half months. Keeley's family must live with their loss for the rest of their lives, and her mother, Sian Morgan, has channeled her grief into campaigning for change. Her petition has attracted nearly 12,000 signatures, and I'm pleased that Sian is here with us today, and I pay tribute to her determination to ensure that other families do not have to endure the same tragedy.
Her campaign deserves to be heard, Miss Lowell and as her Member of Parliament, I will ensure it is heard. This House must take seriously the questions that it raises. I recognise that courts, of course, must consider the individual circumstances of every case. The distinction between careless and dangerous driving is, of course, important, and not every offence should result in the same sentence. However, where a driver's actions demonstrate a serious disregard for the safety of others and a life is lost, we must ask whether our sentencing framework adequately reflects such conduct. And sadly, these concerns are not new.
In my constituency of Cardiff West almost a decade ago, my predecessor raised very similar concerns following the death of another constituent in a case involving dangerous driving in Adamstown in Cardiff. The constituent was killed after two drivers deliberately pursued her and drove her off the road. Both were convicted of dangerous of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to just six and a half and seven and a half years in prison, respectively. The outcome then left the victims family members feeling that justice had not fully reflected the gravity of what had happened. And so how can I find myself, Miss Lowell, or Miss ten years later, representing the same constituency, arguing the same point and in the same hall we are in today?
Why and how can history continue to repeat itself in this way? Now, I know these concerns, of course.
I want to begin, Mr. Lowell, with the tragic case of my constituent, Keeley Morgan, a 15 year old girl whose life was cut short while crossing the road in Cardiff. She was a much loved daughter and a cherished granddaughter, sister and friend with so much to look forward to. On the 1st of May 2023, Keeley was struck by a car while crossing at a pedestrian crossing in Cairo in my constituency, and she died at the scene. The court heard that the driver was travelling above the speed limit, had been driving erratically and showing off, and had removed the vehicle's black box to invalidate his insurance.
The judge described him as, quote, an irresponsible show off. He received 16 months imprisonment for causing death by careless driving and 11 months for causing death by driving while uninsured to be served concurrently. He was also disqualified from driving for two years and eight months. Yet he was released after serving only around six and a half months. Keeley's family must live with their loss for the rest of their lives, and her mother, Sian Morgan, has channeled her grief into campaigning for change. Her petition has attracted nearly 12,000 signatures, and I'm pleased that Sian is here with us today, and I pay tribute to her determination to ensure that other families do not have to endure the same tragedy.
Her campaign deserves to be heard, Miss Lowell and as her Member of Parliament, I will ensure it is heard. This House must take seriously the questions that it raises. I recognise that courts, of course, must consider the individual circumstances of every case. The distinction between careless and dangerous driving is, of course, important, and not every offence should result in the same sentence. However, where a driver's actions demonstrate a serious disregard for the safety of others and a life is lost, we must ask whether our sentencing framework adequately reflects such conduct. And sadly, these concerns are not new.
In my constituency of Cardiff West almost a decade ago, my predecessor raised very similar concerns following the death of another constituent in a case involving dangerous driving in Adamstown in Cardiff. The constituent was killed after two drivers deliberately pursued her and drove her off the road. Both were convicted of dangerous of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to just six and a half and seven and a half years in prison, respectively. The outcome then left the victims family members feeling that justice had not fully reflected the gravity of what had happened. And so how can I find myself, Miss Lowell, or Miss ten years later, representing the same constituency, arguing the same point and in the same hall we are in today?
Why and how can history continue to repeat itself in this way? Now, I know these concerns, of course.
14:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, monsieur, and I do thank him for shedding light on these cases. And it can't be easy. And it can't be easy for families hearing what has happened again. But the reason we are back here, I expect, is because, firstly, the sentences are not a deterrent and also the term death by dangerous driving. It completely underplays what happens, particularly in the cases you have explained. This is manslaughter. So do you think.
Sorry. Do you agree that we should think about sentencing and also about how we present these cases to the courts?
Sorry. Do you agree that we should think about sentencing and also about how we present these cases to the courts?
14:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I entirely agree, and surely I will come on to some actions that I'm calling on the government to take forward, and I think he will be pleased and will agree with some of those when I get to that moment. In 2024, a collision in Carmarthenshire, Carmarthenshire, claimed the lives of two young people. In sentencing the driver at Swansea Crown Court on the 2nd of April of this year, Judge Hugh Rees observed that although although the driver had not exceeded the speed limit, his driving was simply not appropriate for the prevailing road conditions.
Visibility was limited. Conditions were extremely poor. Yet the driver accelerated when greater caution was required. That driver received 16 months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months on both counts of causing death by careless driving, with the sentences again running concurrently. He was disqualified from driving for 18 months and ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work. Two young lives in that case were lost. Yet the driver did not receive an immediate custodial sentence. The outcome and that outcome, and others that I've talked about, including my constituents, inevitably raises questions about whether the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences are adequately reflected in sentencing, because road safety cannot be measured solely by whether someone exceeds the speed limit.
Drivers must exercise judgment, adapt to conditions and put the safety of others first. When two lives are lost, the public must have confidence that the sentences reflect the seriousness of that failure. Sentencing, of course, is not solely about punishment. It must also be a deterrent. If we want drivers to think twice before speeding, before they're showing off, before using their phones when at the wheel, before taking risks in poor weather or disregarding other road users, the consequences must be clear and meaningful. When families repeatedly see outcomes they perceive as inadequate, public confidence suffers. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
We must also consider what happens after an offender has been sentenced. Driving is, of course, a privilege, not a right. Where a driver has demonstrated a serious failure to meet their responsibilities, we must ensure that their return to the road is subject to appropriate safeguards. So I urge the government to take action in four areas. First, driving disqualifications must be reviewed. Where a driver has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to drive safely, there should be a robust process for assessing their fitness to return to the road. The government should consider Sian's proposal for automatic license revocation following serious traffic incidents, notably before an appearance at court or before conviction by a court.
Such steps should be considered alongside mandatory reassessment before driving privileges are ever restored. I will.
Visibility was limited. Conditions were extremely poor. Yet the driver accelerated when greater caution was required. That driver received 16 months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months on both counts of causing death by careless driving, with the sentences again running concurrently. He was disqualified from driving for 18 months and ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work. Two young lives in that case were lost. Yet the driver did not receive an immediate custodial sentence. The outcome and that outcome, and others that I've talked about, including my constituents, inevitably raises questions about whether the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences are adequately reflected in sentencing, because road safety cannot be measured solely by whether someone exceeds the speed limit.
Drivers must exercise judgment, adapt to conditions and put the safety of others first. When two lives are lost, the public must have confidence that the sentences reflect the seriousness of that failure. Sentencing, of course, is not solely about punishment. It must also be a deterrent. If we want drivers to think twice before speeding, before they're showing off, before using their phones when at the wheel, before taking risks in poor weather or disregarding other road users, the consequences must be clear and meaningful. When families repeatedly see outcomes they perceive as inadequate, public confidence suffers. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
We must also consider what happens after an offender has been sentenced. Driving is, of course, a privilege, not a right. Where a driver has demonstrated a serious failure to meet their responsibilities, we must ensure that their return to the road is subject to appropriate safeguards. So I urge the government to take action in four areas. First, driving disqualifications must be reviewed. Where a driver has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to drive safely, there should be a robust process for assessing their fitness to return to the road. The government should consider Sian's proposal for automatic license revocation following serious traffic incidents, notably before an appearance at court or before conviction by a court.
Such steps should be considered alongside mandatory reassessment before driving privileges are ever restored. I will.
14:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank him for giving way and I thank him for securing this very important debate today. Road safety is a key issue in my Spen Valley constituency. He is absolutely right to say that the sentences should reflect these hideous crimes. Would he also agree with me that we have to look at Prevention and Woody as part of that, encourage the government to look at the introduction of graduated driving licences, which is a way of preventing these horrendous incidents taking place in the first place.
And there's huge international evidence now that shows that it saves lives.
And there's huge international evidence now that shows that it saves lives.
14:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes the point excellently, and I totally endorse what she said, and I am sure the minister was listening carefully, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that when he winds up. I am aware that the suspension of driving licences was consulted on as part of the Department for Transport's Motoring Offences consultation. This was not just in circumstances of death by dangerous driving or careless driving offences, but also for both drink and drug related offences. So I would ask the Minister does everything he can to ensure that the Department for transport carefully considers this question, and that of my hon.
Friend for Spen Valley as it analyses those consultation responses. Secondly, sentencing guidelines must be reviewed. The government should examine guidelines for careless and dangerous driving, resulting in death, ensuring that excessive speed, deliberate risk taking, previous offending and disregard for safety receive appropriate weight. I will, yeah.
Friend for Spen Valley as it analyses those consultation responses. Secondly, sentencing guidelines must be reviewed. The government should examine guidelines for careless and dangerous driving, resulting in death, ensuring that excessive speed, deliberate risk taking, previous offending and disregard for safety receive appropriate weight. I will, yeah.
14:38
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. I thank my friend for giving way on this important issue. Having spoken quite vociferously on this issue previously, one thing has to happen is that tougher sentences have to happen with the revocation of licences for a very, very long period. In my own constituency, two lives were lost. One two months ago, a 60 year old man on the same stretch last year. We lost a 56 year old. We have to look at the causes as well. And if that's people taking balloons, we're going to restrict them. Taking the gases in the balloons when they're high on things, but also implementing safety measures that would prevent cars doing 89 miles an hour in a 20 mile zone.
14:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank him for sharing those stories, and I extend my greatest sympathies to the affected constituents that he so admirably represents. And I entirely agree with what he said, because consistency is important, Mr. Lowell, but it must not come at the expense of properly reflecting the circumstances of each crime. Relatedly, the Minister will know that the unduly lenient scheme allows anyone to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General's office if they think the sentence is too lenient. The review is ultimately conducted by the law officers, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, and if they consider the sentence appears unduly lenient, they can ask the Court of Appeal to review the sentence, but only sentences passed in the Crown Court in respect of offences triable only on indictment, i.e.
in the Crown Court or those offences added to the scheme by subsequent order, may be referred to the Court of Appeal. Now, the offence of causing death by careless driving is not triable only on indictment and although there is a long list of offences which have been added to the ULS scheme by various subsequent orders, this the offence of causing death by careless driving has not been following the sentence of Keeley's killer killer Sian was mistakenly told by the prosecuting barrister and the CPS lawyer dealing with the case that the sentence imposed may have been too lenient, and that they would consider whether the matter should be referred under the ULS scheme for the reasons I've mentioned.
Regrettably, this was a mistake. I wonder, then, if the minister might reflect on this disconnect, and whether he would seek to enquire whether the offence of causing death by dangerous, by careless driving should itself be added to the ULS scheme. Thirdly, the government should consider whether legislative changes are needed to strengthen custodial sentences. I will.
in the Crown Court or those offences added to the scheme by subsequent order, may be referred to the Court of Appeal. Now, the offence of causing death by careless driving is not triable only on indictment and although there is a long list of offences which have been added to the ULS scheme by various subsequent orders, this the offence of causing death by careless driving has not been following the sentence of Keeley's killer killer Sian was mistakenly told by the prosecuting barrister and the CPS lawyer dealing with the case that the sentence imposed may have been too lenient, and that they would consider whether the matter should be referred under the ULS scheme for the reasons I've mentioned.
Regrettably, this was a mistake. I wonder, then, if the minister might reflect on this disconnect, and whether he would seek to enquire whether the offence of causing death by dangerous, by careless driving should itself be added to the ULS scheme. Thirdly, the government should consider whether legislative changes are needed to strengthen custodial sentences. I will.
14:41
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House and for giving way. And I want to raise the really sad case of Sophie Brimble, which was brought to me by her sister. She was killed by a passenger as a passenger in the car with her boyfriend, who was going three times the speed limit. The driver was found unfit to plead and therefore he walked out of court without having to face justice. This unfit to plead law dates back to 1836. So would my hon. Friend agree with me that this is really well overdue for this law to be reformed?
14:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing yet another tragic story, and again, extend my sincere condolences to her constituents. And I entirely agree, and I hope the Minister can address that when he stands to speak. Now, of course, a prison sentence can never bring back a loved one, but it must provide meaningful accountability and act as a genuine deterrent, as we've been saying. We must examine whether the sentences available and imposed in these most serious of cases adequately reflect the harm caused, including whether suspended sentences are even appropriate in such cases. Now, fourthly, we must address repeat offending and prevention and deal with and prevention.
Now the government should, in my opinion, review whether current penalties sufficiently address patterns of irresponsible driving before they lead to further tragedy. Stronger sentences alone will not solve every road safety problem. Enforcement, education and safer infrastructure must remain central.
Now the government should, in my opinion, review whether current penalties sufficiently address patterns of irresponsible driving before they lead to further tragedy. Stronger sentences alone will not solve every road safety problem. Enforcement, education and safer infrastructure must remain central.
14:43
14:43
14:43
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Give way. Thank you, friend, for giving way. Government figures show that rural roads account for 60% of road deaths, but only 45% of traffic and speed related factors recorded in over half of fatal conditions in the last year. In my constituency in Gravesham, we lost two people in Sole Street who were cyclists on the road. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that rural villages where roads are narrower without pavements shared by walkers, cyclists and horse riders need particular attention and intervention?
14:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend. I entirely agree and again extend my condolences to affected constituents in her constituency, and I agree part of my constituency is rural as well, so this affects many constituencies across our four home nations, and I am sure the minister has been listening carefully to that. This debate is not about revenge. It is about justice, accountability and prevention. We cannot change what happened to the victims of these offences, but we can decide what lessons we learn from their deaths.
I will.
I will.
14:44
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My constituent Darren, who is the father of Aidan Venison, who was 19 years old when he was killed by a driver under the influence of drink and drugs, and he was not a first time offender. He had already been banned from driving before and also while uninsured. And the parents clearly don't understand the leniency that may have been afforded to a drive like that and why they are still allowed to be on the roads. But the honourable member agree that sometimes what is perceived as lenient sentences actually adds to the heartbreak of of parents.
14:44
14:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Completely agree with the honourable lady. And again extend my condolences to the constituents she admirably representing. And I entirely agree. It is about accountability. It is also about justice. And it's about the message it sends to the victims and their families who have to live with that loss for the rest of their life. I'll give way.
14:44
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Honourable gentleman. I very much for giving way, and I'm so glad he's called this debate. I just wanted to include in the feeling of injustice that there is for those who suffer the loss of a family member. One of my constituents in particular, where the person who killed his wife with a car actually chose to give a no comment interview throughout. And there were only two vehicles involved a bike with his wife and a car. She didn't she didn't deny that she'd done that, but she gave a no comment interview throughout the proceedings. And that is just adding to the grief and injustice that that family feels.
14:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank you for sharing that tragic story. Again, extend my condolences to those affected, and I entirely agree. We have to think of this holistically , because the impact is forever with the families and the friends of the victims. If Miss Lowell, two different families, two different MPs from the same constituency have been raising the same concerns now for almost a decade, Parliament has a responsibility to listen. We must ask whether our laws provide sufficient punishment, sufficient deterrence and sufficient protection for the public. And if they do not, we must have the courage to change them.
Every day, residents cross the zebra crossing in Cairo to visit the park for the community there. It's a daily reminder of Keeley and the life loss. The community support I know for the family has been tremendous, but no amount of flowers, murals or kind words are going to bring Keeley back to Sian and her lovely family. I am grateful and thank Sian and her family and everyone who supported her campaign for their courage, channeling their grief in an attempt to get a productive outcome that we're talking about here today. Keeley should have been able to cross that road safely and return home.
She was so much more than the circumstances of her death. A daughter, a sister, and a young girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her family should be able to remember her for who she was, rather than having to fight to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same indignity. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that our sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of these offences, gives families confidence that justice has been served and act as a meaningful deterrent. To prevent further tragedies, we must ensure that the consequences are serious enough to reflect the harm caused, hold offenders accountable and deter others from taking the same risks.
I urge the government to review the legislation and sentencing framework and to take meaningful action. I look forward to hearing the minister's response and the contributions, the further contributions of colleagues. Thank you, Miss Law, here.
Every day, residents cross the zebra crossing in Cairo to visit the park for the community there. It's a daily reminder of Keeley and the life loss. The community support I know for the family has been tremendous, but no amount of flowers, murals or kind words are going to bring Keeley back to Sian and her lovely family. I am grateful and thank Sian and her family and everyone who supported her campaign for their courage, channeling their grief in an attempt to get a productive outcome that we're talking about here today. Keeley should have been able to cross that road safely and return home.
She was so much more than the circumstances of her death. A daughter, a sister, and a young girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her family should be able to remember her for who she was, rather than having to fight to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same indignity. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that our sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of these offences, gives families confidence that justice has been served and act as a meaningful deterrent. To prevent further tragedies, we must ensure that the consequences are serious enough to reflect the harm caused, hold offenders accountable and deter others from taking the same risks.
I urge the government to review the legislation and sentencing framework and to take meaningful action. I look forward to hearing the minister's response and the contributions, the further contributions of colleagues. Thank you, Miss Law, here.
14:47
14:48
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Madam Chair. And as I said before, I thank the honourable member for bringing this debate forward. I wanted just to pick up on something the honourable gentleman had said, and that is driving is a privilege. And to be able to return to the road immediately as somebody who may have well, has killed another person or caused somebody serious injury seems particularly injurious. And his call for automatic license revocation. I hope that the minister may be able to address that point. And the fact that that feels so incredibly lenient, especially when it is the case that court cases take a long time to come around and people have to wait a very, very long time before.
And they can the the person who's the perpetrator can carry on with the rest of their life while the family is suspended in utter grief. So my sense is that suspended sentences also are not appropriate. And particularly in the case I'm thinking of, there's one where somebody is given a no comment interview to the police and chooses not to speak at all. It just seems so desperately unfair. I wondered also if we might address the fact that it's already been mentioned, that there are people who are driving without insurance, people who drive without tax, people who drive without a valid m.o.t.
And yet the police are so stretched that they are not able to deal with this sort of issue when it comes along. And those those minor infringements, as the people who do that would consider them, only just increase the likelihood of somebody carrying on to behave more and more irresponsibly. So I would ask the minister, perhaps, to consider what he might have done to look at what's happening in France and in Ireland, which they're our nearest neighbours, and they seem to have slightly different view and different actions that take place. And I'm very happy to send the minister some information about that.
And I'll do that, sir. Thank you. Right. So I, I would like to just talk about one other aspect, and that is how we prevent dangerous behaviour before it results in another death, even one. And I want to concentrate on at this point on speeding and racing, which is a serious concern in my constituency of Wells and Mendip Hills. So between 2019 and 2024, 204 people were either killed or seriously injured. It was actually 29 who lost their lives. And another another 175 suffered serious injuries. And I know that just when I was sitting here, I'm thinking about an accident that happened near Dinder, just outside Wells, an accident that happened at Blackford.
An accident happened very recently in the village of Ston Easton. These things are catastrophic, not just for the people who live nearby, not just for the family, but for everyone who's involved. It's really desperate stuff. So I those those people who are killed or seriously injured, they're not just statistics. They represent the individuals, the families and the communities who, whose lives are very often changed forever. And whilst I wouldn't suggest that all those collisions involved speeding, we do know that nationally, excessive speed is a contributory factor in around 1 in 5 fatal collisions in 2024.
And that surely underlines why tackling excessive speeding must be central to any serious strategy to reduce road deaths. And I'm aware that the Transport Department is has published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, and I think it's great, but the we have a justice minister here, so I'll just ask him if he would actually please work with his colleagues in the transport department. And I have a really straightforward question. And that is, there's an ambition to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 65% by 2035. And that's very welcome. But I'm not entirely sure.
And I'll ask the minister to ask the Transport minister where that 65% reduction is going to come from. Many in the road safety community are questioning whether the measures currently proposed are sufficient to achieve that ambition, and the strategy is relatively light on specific measures to tackle serious and persistent speeding. Despite recognising speeding as one of the fatal four causes of death or serious injury on our roads. So since that strategy has been published and it was published all the way back in January, there must be an urgent need to finalise the government's response to the consultations, set out a clear delivery plan and to begin implementing the measures that will actually save lives.
One possibility. I know that I went to an event here in the Houses of Parliament, and I was really interested in the intervening intelligent speed assistant or I, ISA , and that is there is technology that is fitted to new cars, I recognise that, but this is can be fitted to cars that are already on the road. I've asked for some only because I drive, you know, 25,000 miles a year and I'm in and out of 30 and 40 and 20 limits regularly, and I don't wish to get any points. So. But so I should declare an interest, I suppose.
But unlike the intelligent speed assistance technology which is fitted to new cars, new cars, this can warn drivers that warns drivers when they exceed the speed limit, but that can be overridden or switched off. And it shouldn't be intervening. Technology can actively prevent a vehicle from accelerating beyond the legal limit, and it's not a theoretical idea. It's already happening in Virginia, in the United States. And there's a program that was introduced this year which allows the courts to require certain speeding offenders to use vehicles that are fitted with speed limiting technology. And I think that has to be an advance.
So I think transport for London has also demonstrated very high levels of speed limit compliance, using intervening technology in its bus fleet. So can the minister reassure us, or can I ask the Minister to get transport ministers to reassure us that his officials, her officials, beg your pardon, have examined the progress being made in other jurisdictions using ISA as part of the offender management, and I wonder whether the minister might sort of pose a slightly different angle on this and just ask, why would we not do that rather than why would we do it? It just seems that it's it's demonstrated to be effective and practical, and it has potential to save lives.
So I just think it's something we should be trialling , at least. So, chair, I return to the families whose experiences lie at the heart of today's debate. They deserve justice. They also deserve to know that we're doing everything that is reasonably possible to prevent other families suffering as they have. Surely.
And they can the the person who's the perpetrator can carry on with the rest of their life while the family is suspended in utter grief. So my sense is that suspended sentences also are not appropriate. And particularly in the case I'm thinking of, there's one where somebody is given a no comment interview to the police and chooses not to speak at all. It just seems so desperately unfair. I wondered also if we might address the fact that it's already been mentioned, that there are people who are driving without insurance, people who drive without tax, people who drive without a valid m.o.t.
And yet the police are so stretched that they are not able to deal with this sort of issue when it comes along. And those those minor infringements, as the people who do that would consider them, only just increase the likelihood of somebody carrying on to behave more and more irresponsibly. So I would ask the minister, perhaps, to consider what he might have done to look at what's happening in France and in Ireland, which they're our nearest neighbours, and they seem to have slightly different view and different actions that take place. And I'm very happy to send the minister some information about that.
And I'll do that, sir. Thank you. Right. So I, I would like to just talk about one other aspect, and that is how we prevent dangerous behaviour before it results in another death, even one. And I want to concentrate on at this point on speeding and racing, which is a serious concern in my constituency of Wells and Mendip Hills. So between 2019 and 2024, 204 people were either killed or seriously injured. It was actually 29 who lost their lives. And another another 175 suffered serious injuries. And I know that just when I was sitting here, I'm thinking about an accident that happened near Dinder, just outside Wells, an accident that happened at Blackford.
An accident happened very recently in the village of Ston Easton. These things are catastrophic, not just for the people who live nearby, not just for the family, but for everyone who's involved. It's really desperate stuff. So I those those people who are killed or seriously injured, they're not just statistics. They represent the individuals, the families and the communities who, whose lives are very often changed forever. And whilst I wouldn't suggest that all those collisions involved speeding, we do know that nationally, excessive speed is a contributory factor in around 1 in 5 fatal collisions in 2024.
And that surely underlines why tackling excessive speeding must be central to any serious strategy to reduce road deaths. And I'm aware that the Transport Department is has published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, and I think it's great, but the we have a justice minister here, so I'll just ask him if he would actually please work with his colleagues in the transport department. And I have a really straightforward question. And that is, there's an ambition to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 65% by 2035. And that's very welcome. But I'm not entirely sure.
And I'll ask the minister to ask the Transport minister where that 65% reduction is going to come from. Many in the road safety community are questioning whether the measures currently proposed are sufficient to achieve that ambition, and the strategy is relatively light on specific measures to tackle serious and persistent speeding. Despite recognising speeding as one of the fatal four causes of death or serious injury on our roads. So since that strategy has been published and it was published all the way back in January, there must be an urgent need to finalise the government's response to the consultations, set out a clear delivery plan and to begin implementing the measures that will actually save lives.
One possibility. I know that I went to an event here in the Houses of Parliament, and I was really interested in the intervening intelligent speed assistant or I, ISA , and that is there is technology that is fitted to new cars, I recognise that, but this is can be fitted to cars that are already on the road. I've asked for some only because I drive, you know, 25,000 miles a year and I'm in and out of 30 and 40 and 20 limits regularly, and I don't wish to get any points. So. But so I should declare an interest, I suppose.
But unlike the intelligent speed assistance technology which is fitted to new cars, new cars, this can warn drivers that warns drivers when they exceed the speed limit, but that can be overridden or switched off. And it shouldn't be intervening. Technology can actively prevent a vehicle from accelerating beyond the legal limit, and it's not a theoretical idea. It's already happening in Virginia, in the United States. And there's a program that was introduced this year which allows the courts to require certain speeding offenders to use vehicles that are fitted with speed limiting technology. And I think that has to be an advance.
So I think transport for London has also demonstrated very high levels of speed limit compliance, using intervening technology in its bus fleet. So can the minister reassure us, or can I ask the Minister to get transport ministers to reassure us that his officials, her officials, beg your pardon, have examined the progress being made in other jurisdictions using ISA as part of the offender management, and I wonder whether the minister might sort of pose a slightly different angle on this and just ask, why would we not do that rather than why would we do it? It just seems that it's it's demonstrated to be effective and practical, and it has potential to save lives.
So I just think it's something we should be trialling , at least. So, chair, I return to the families whose experiences lie at the heart of today's debate. They deserve justice. They also deserve to know that we're doing everything that is reasonably possible to prevent other families suffering as they have. Surely.
14:55
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you for giving way. I agree with you that we welcome the 65% target by 2035, but by 2035, we could have at least two general elections, if not more. And that is not fair on the families that have lost their loved ones. We need to be reducing quicker, more urgently than 2035 to be the target. If that target is set, then perhaps it needs to be brought forward into this Parliament and make a significant start in achieving that by 2035.
14:56
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. I would say to the Minister all the optimism in the world in that you might get another two lots of elections, I still think doesn't give you reason to this. This timetable really does need to be contracted when there's such simple wins that can be taking place, and we should do things as quickly as we possibly can. 2035 does seem like an awfully long way away. So. There is an ambitious target. I understand that, but we do need the measures and the timetable and the determination. And as I said, I'm going to ask him to answer those questions that are relevant to him, and I will ask him very kindly to pass those that he's not going to be able to answer on to the Department for transport and the Secretary of State in particular.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
14:56
14:56
14:56
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
It's a pleasure to serve under your chair, Miss Lowell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Cardiff West on securing this debate on an issue that is particularly close to my heart, having seen two young women from my constituency lose their lives as a result of dangerous driving, I know that too many colleagues in this room will have supported families who have experienced similar tragedies. I want to begin with a story of Lili Clarke and the extraordinary work her family have undertaken in her memory on Christmas Day 2021, Lili was a passenger in a car driven by a man who had been drinking.
The driver, Charlie Hylton, was fleeing the police at speeds of more than 100 miles an hour when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a tree. Lili suffered catastrophic injuries and died three days later. She was just 22 years old. In February 2023, Hylton was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison for causing death by dangerous driving and other offences. But no prison sentence can bring back Lili or undo the devastation caused to her family.
And Lili's death. And Lili's death is far from an isolated incident.
The driver, Charlie Hylton, was fleeing the police at speeds of more than 100 miles an hour when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a tree. Lili suffered catastrophic injuries and died three days later. She was just 22 years old. In February 2023, Hylton was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison for causing death by dangerous driving and other offences. But no prison sentence can bring back Lili or undo the devastation caused to her family.
And Lili's death. And Lili's death is far from an isolated incident.
14:58
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank the honourable member for giving way and I. This week marks a year since the death of Abigail Eggleston, the girlfriend of one of my constituents in similar circumstances, killed by Liam Bose in a hit and run incident. And I'm sure all of our thoughts will be with the family and her former partner, William Payne. Bose was sentenced to 12 years in prison by causing death by dangerous driving. And I wonder if my honourable friend will agree that justice has to be delivered for victims of crimes like this, and if she would welcome the government's commitment that those convicted of this crime and this offence will not be eligible for early release, which would otherwise have effectively halved the time that Bose would have served in prison.
14:59
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I absolutely agree with my honourable friend, and can I extend my condolences, and I am sure of all members to Abigail Eggleston's family that that she died in such tragic circumstances. According to the Stop Excessive Speeders campaign, between 2020 and 2025, 282 people were killed or seriously injured in road collisions in Mitcham and Morden, including five who had lost their lives. Those figures seem extraordinary, madam chair, another young woman from my constituency who lost her life as a result of dangerous driving was Aalia. Mohammed Aalia was just 20 years old and studying at King's College , London.
In March last year. She was sitting on a bench outside her university when a van mounted the pavement and struck her. She died at the scene. The driver, Christopher Jackson, subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Aalia had her whole life ahead of her, and her family have been left to come to terms with the loss that no sentence can undo. Her death is a reminder that dangerous driving threatens not only those travelling on our roads, but also pedestrians going about their everyday lives. And it's tragedies like these that have led families to campaign for change since Lily's death.
Her mum Debbie, alongside her Aunty Donna, has worked tirelessly to ensure that something positive comes from the unimaginable tragedy. And I want to take a moment to recognise what Debbie has achieved. On what would have been Lily's 25th birthday, Debbie opened lilies in the garden, a beautiful tea room at Merton and Sutton Joint Cemetery. I had the pleasure of attending its opening, and I cannot speak highly enough of the wonderful space Debbie has created. It is somewhere for people visiting loved ones at the cemetery to find comfort, and equally somewhere for anyone passing by to enjoy a cup of tea, a slice of cake and a very friendly conversation.
I would encourage any honourable members who find themselves on Garth Road in Lower Morden to pay a visit through her charity Eyes Wet. Now, Debbie is also working to support other bereaved families. It is a remarkable achievement and a wonderful tribute to Lily. Debbie and Donna have also been campaigning for the introduction of Lily's Law, with more than 43,000 people signing their petition. Their campaign has two demands. First, that drivers. A driver's licence should be immediately suspended following a fatal road collision, pending investigation and second, that anyone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be permanently disqualified from driving, whether alcohol was involved or not.
These proposals seek justice for those who have lost their lives, and they are also about preventing further tragedy. I also want to recognise the extraordinary determination of Claire Corkery, who has been campaigning for justice following the deaths of both her parents in January 2024. Tom and Sue Corkery were walking their dog in Bearsted, Kent, when they were struck and killed by a speeding driver. In a single moment, Claire lost both her mum and her dad. The driver, Scott Gunn, was subsequently convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to 16 years in prison. But it took over a year for Gunn to be brought before the courts.
Throughout that time, he was legally permitted to drive, and he admitted in court that he had to continue to drive. Even after his conviction, Gunn received a driving ban of just eight years. Claire is understandably concerned that he could return to the roads once he has served his sentence, and his disqualification has expired. Claire has also campaigned against the early release of Dangerous drivers, determined to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the lives lost.
Her experience demonstrates precisely why the two demands of Lily's law are so important. The power to suspend licences.
In March last year. She was sitting on a bench outside her university when a van mounted the pavement and struck her. She died at the scene. The driver, Christopher Jackson, subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Aalia had her whole life ahead of her, and her family have been left to come to terms with the loss that no sentence can undo. Her death is a reminder that dangerous driving threatens not only those travelling on our roads, but also pedestrians going about their everyday lives. And it's tragedies like these that have led families to campaign for change since Lily's death.
Her mum Debbie, alongside her Aunty Donna, has worked tirelessly to ensure that something positive comes from the unimaginable tragedy. And I want to take a moment to recognise what Debbie has achieved. On what would have been Lily's 25th birthday, Debbie opened lilies in the garden, a beautiful tea room at Merton and Sutton Joint Cemetery. I had the pleasure of attending its opening, and I cannot speak highly enough of the wonderful space Debbie has created. It is somewhere for people visiting loved ones at the cemetery to find comfort, and equally somewhere for anyone passing by to enjoy a cup of tea, a slice of cake and a very friendly conversation.
I would encourage any honourable members who find themselves on Garth Road in Lower Morden to pay a visit through her charity Eyes Wet. Now, Debbie is also working to support other bereaved families. It is a remarkable achievement and a wonderful tribute to Lily. Debbie and Donna have also been campaigning for the introduction of Lily's Law, with more than 43,000 people signing their petition. Their campaign has two demands. First, that drivers. A driver's licence should be immediately suspended following a fatal road collision, pending investigation and second, that anyone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be permanently disqualified from driving, whether alcohol was involved or not.
These proposals seek justice for those who have lost their lives, and they are also about preventing further tragedy. I also want to recognise the extraordinary determination of Claire Corkery, who has been campaigning for justice following the deaths of both her parents in January 2024. Tom and Sue Corkery were walking their dog in Bearsted, Kent, when they were struck and killed by a speeding driver. In a single moment, Claire lost both her mum and her dad. The driver, Scott Gunn, was subsequently convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to 16 years in prison. But it took over a year for Gunn to be brought before the courts.
Throughout that time, he was legally permitted to drive, and he admitted in court that he had to continue to drive. Even after his conviction, Gunn received a driving ban of just eight years. Claire is understandably concerned that he could return to the roads once he has served his sentence, and his disqualification has expired. Claire has also campaigned against the early release of Dangerous drivers, determined to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the lives lost.
Her experience demonstrates precisely why the two demands of Lily's law are so important. The power to suspend licences.
15:04
15:04
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My friend for bringing this debate as well. There are 4154 people still on the roads who have 12 plus points on their licence, on the grounds that it would cause disproportionate suffering to a third party. But what about the disproportionate suffering to families? Would my honourable friend agree with me that that get out need review as well?
15:04
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I would agree with my honourable friend on that point. Lily's laws is so important because it wants the power to suspend licences immediately following fatal collision and permanent disqualification for those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Her determination, like Debbie's, deserves recognition and I want to recognise the important progress the government has already made. In August, the government confirmed that those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving would be excluded from the new early release arrangements. Debbie Clarke wrote to the Prime Minister personally to thank him for that decision. For a family who has endured so much, it meant a great deal to know that the seriousness of what happened to Lily has been recognised, and I welcome the government's road safety Strategy, published in January, which, as we've already heard, sets out an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035.
This is a strategy that recognises the need for stronger action against dangerous drivers. It considers new powers to suspend the licences of those under investigation for the most serious motoring offences, resulting in death or serious injury. This is a significant step forward towards addressing one of the central concerns by Lily's law. I would be grateful if the minister could update on the progress of those proposals and when we might expect to see them brought forward. I also want to raise the question of permanent driving disqualification. I recognise the courts already have the power to impose lifetime driving bans.
Could the Minister also explain what consideration the government has given to mandatory permanent disqualification, and whether further measures could be considered to strengthen the protection of the public? The government's own road safety strategy makes an important point, as other honourable members have argued, holding a driving licence is not an automatic right, and I think that principle should guide us as we consider how to protect people from the most dangerous drivers. I hope that the minister will continue to listen to Debbie and families like hers, and work with them to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent another tragedy like Lily's, Aaliyah's and Tom and Sue Corkery's.
.
This is a strategy that recognises the need for stronger action against dangerous drivers. It considers new powers to suspend the licences of those under investigation for the most serious motoring offences, resulting in death or serious injury. This is a significant step forward towards addressing one of the central concerns by Lily's law. I would be grateful if the minister could update on the progress of those proposals and when we might expect to see them brought forward. I also want to raise the question of permanent driving disqualification. I recognise the courts already have the power to impose lifetime driving bans.
Could the Minister also explain what consideration the government has given to mandatory permanent disqualification, and whether further measures could be considered to strengthen the protection of the public? The government's own road safety strategy makes an important point, as other honourable members have argued, holding a driving licence is not an automatic right, and I think that principle should guide us as we consider how to protect people from the most dangerous drivers. I hope that the minister will continue to listen to Debbie and families like hers, and work with them to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent another tragedy like Lily's, Aaliyah's and Tom and Sue Corkery's.
.
15:07
15:07
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Madam Chair, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and and to be cold. And can I thank the honourable gentleman for Cardiff West for raising what is an incredibly sensitive debate and for all the contributions, because the contributions will always, by the very nature of life, include circumstances in your own constituency where someone has passed away or been killed as a result of a road accident or died afterwards. I have to say this I don't believe that anyone sets out in their car intending to take a life. Yet tragically, this does happen for whatever those reasons may be, from using a phone behind the wheel to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
I'm old enough in this world to remember when they. It was always. Alcohol under the influence was the reasons. And then it was alcohol and drugs or just drugs on their own. And this last few years, I think the the presence of motorists using drugs and how it affects their driving and, and aspects of their driving and the threat that they hold behind the wheel to others has become a massive issue. And whilst the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is now life imprisonment in England and Wales in many cases, as the honourable Lady before me said, this is not applied and the Honourable Lady referred to having mandatory sentence life sentence for for it I think is what I would probably be seeking for as well, not the discretion that the that the magistrate or the judge will have when it comes to handing out the sentence.
Critics say, of course, or judges retain a large amount of discretion by allowing them to assess individual culpability, which I. I'm not quite sure how that how that is done. And it's not my. Here to tell a judge that doing things wrong, because that's not my my, my my way of doing things. Nor is it my, my, my knowledge when it comes to legal matters. However, I do believe that justice in these cases is best served by allowing judges to consider the unique circumstances of each case, but it is clear the system is largely effective, as 95% of those convicted of death by dangerous driving are indeed sent to prison.
So there is stats which which I, I think indicate that it does happen. But the things that always come to our attention are the cases where it happens and there is no life sentence, there is no sending them to the prison. I should have welcomed the minister's place with apologies for not doing so earlier. I wish him well in the in the role that he does, and hopefully we can get the answers that we seek from from the honourable gentleman. Nonetheless, we must continue to listen to the victims families concerns because that's really what motivates us all as elected representatives to the victims families.
As some highlighted offenders can continue driving until conviction after causing a fatality or resume driving very soon after leaving prison. So when it comes to to getting a sentence and going to prison, I think it would be appropriate, Madam Chair, that that the the driving licence should be removed from them and that they aren't able to resume driving as soon as they would access prison after probably a small sentence. These gaps must be addressed both to protect the public and to provide greater reassurance to families to families in Northern Ireland. Madam chair, the maximum sentence remains 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving and this, I believe, should be brought into line with England and Wales, giving our courts greater powers to impose even harsher sentences where they see fit.
My own constituency of Strangford, unfortunately, has not been, as has also seen, the blight of dangerous driving and those, I have to say, who have been lost their lives as a result. Just last last year, last year, Madam Deputy Speaker, our Deputy Chair, on the same night, two young people were killed in separate incidents aged 12 and Jayden Rice, aged 16, two lovely young people, and hadn't even got into the the prime of life. And they were both lost their lives due to accidents. My thoughts continue to be with both families whose lives have been changed forever, and when you hear the the family stories, as others have explained and told very eloquently here in the chamber today.
Madam Chair, the impact upon the families left behind is something that they resonate with every day of their life. I remember one of my good friends, his son, was killed in a different circumstance, but he always told me, Jimmy, he says, when when a good or bad a night, I think of my I think of Stewart. And when I wake up in the morning, I think of Stewart. And that's what the families do. The families, that vacant chair, that anxiety and angst and, and pain that they have in their heart is something that's very, very real to them.
So I conclude with this chair. I call on government to retain the discretion of judges when sentencing, but always to have the mandatory sentence of, of, of jail. These cases are immensely complex. They cause profound distress to drivers, victims and their families. And while no sentence can ever reflect the loss suffered, the court must be allowed to assign a sentence which is truly reflective of blameworthiness. And again to the honourable gentleman for for giving us a chance to speak today. I thank him very much and I look forward to the Minister's response. Thank you Dean.
I'm old enough in this world to remember when they. It was always. Alcohol under the influence was the reasons. And then it was alcohol and drugs or just drugs on their own. And this last few years, I think the the presence of motorists using drugs and how it affects their driving and, and aspects of their driving and the threat that they hold behind the wheel to others has become a massive issue. And whilst the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is now life imprisonment in England and Wales in many cases, as the honourable Lady before me said, this is not applied and the Honourable Lady referred to having mandatory sentence life sentence for for it I think is what I would probably be seeking for as well, not the discretion that the that the magistrate or the judge will have when it comes to handing out the sentence.
Critics say, of course, or judges retain a large amount of discretion by allowing them to assess individual culpability, which I. I'm not quite sure how that how that is done. And it's not my. Here to tell a judge that doing things wrong, because that's not my my, my my way of doing things. Nor is it my, my, my knowledge when it comes to legal matters. However, I do believe that justice in these cases is best served by allowing judges to consider the unique circumstances of each case, but it is clear the system is largely effective, as 95% of those convicted of death by dangerous driving are indeed sent to prison.
So there is stats which which I, I think indicate that it does happen. But the things that always come to our attention are the cases where it happens and there is no life sentence, there is no sending them to the prison. I should have welcomed the minister's place with apologies for not doing so earlier. I wish him well in the in the role that he does, and hopefully we can get the answers that we seek from from the honourable gentleman. Nonetheless, we must continue to listen to the victims families concerns because that's really what motivates us all as elected representatives to the victims families.
As some highlighted offenders can continue driving until conviction after causing a fatality or resume driving very soon after leaving prison. So when it comes to to getting a sentence and going to prison, I think it would be appropriate, Madam Chair, that that the the driving licence should be removed from them and that they aren't able to resume driving as soon as they would access prison after probably a small sentence. These gaps must be addressed both to protect the public and to provide greater reassurance to families to families in Northern Ireland. Madam chair, the maximum sentence remains 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving and this, I believe, should be brought into line with England and Wales, giving our courts greater powers to impose even harsher sentences where they see fit.
My own constituency of Strangford, unfortunately, has not been, as has also seen, the blight of dangerous driving and those, I have to say, who have been lost their lives as a result. Just last last year, last year, Madam Deputy Speaker, our Deputy Chair, on the same night, two young people were killed in separate incidents aged 12 and Jayden Rice, aged 16, two lovely young people, and hadn't even got into the the prime of life. And they were both lost their lives due to accidents. My thoughts continue to be with both families whose lives have been changed forever, and when you hear the the family stories, as others have explained and told very eloquently here in the chamber today.
Madam Chair, the impact upon the families left behind is something that they resonate with every day of their life. I remember one of my good friends, his son, was killed in a different circumstance, but he always told me, Jimmy, he says, when when a good or bad a night, I think of my I think of Stewart. And when I wake up in the morning, I think of Stewart. And that's what the families do. The families, that vacant chair, that anxiety and angst and, and pain that they have in their heart is something that's very, very real to them.
So I conclude with this chair. I call on government to retain the discretion of judges when sentencing, but always to have the mandatory sentence of, of, of jail. These cases are immensely complex. They cause profound distress to drivers, victims and their families. And while no sentence can ever reflect the loss suffered, the court must be allowed to assign a sentence which is truly reflective of blameworthiness. And again to the honourable gentleman for for giving us a chance to speak today. I thank him very much and I look forward to the Minister's response. Thank you Dean.
15:13
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, chair, and it's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon. And I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate, because behind every road death is a family, a group of friends, loved ones that have been changed forever. Today I want to speak about one such family from my constituency, the parents of Jess Waterman, who join us in the gallery this afternoon and who minister you kindly met with earlier this year on the evening of the 19th of February 2022, Jesse's partner, someone she knew and trusted, picked her up from the waterman's home in Bishop's Stortford.
He had never passed a theory or practical driving test. He took to the roads in full knowledge that he was not qualified to drive. He showed brazen disregard for Jesse's safety and the safety of other road users. He crashed that evening and when he fled the scene to avoid arrest, he left Jess behind seriously injured. Tragically, Jess died the following day. She was three days short of her 21st birthday. The police acted to apprehend the driver, but the outcome of this case raises serious questions about whether the law properly reflects the choices people make before getting behind the wheel and the devastation that can follow when it goes wrong.
The driver responsible for Jesse's death was convicted of causing death by careless driving rather than causing death by dangerous driving, and that distinction matters. Dangerous driving will generally involve driving that falls far below the standard of expected expected of a competent driver. Careless driving can cover errors of judgment or lapses in attention. Driving without a license is not simply careless. This was not a split second mistake. It was a conscious decision taken before the journey ever began. It required premeditation. The driver knew he was unqualified, knew he should not be behind the wheel, but he chose to get behind the wheel anyway.
With Jess in the car, Jesse's death was treated in law as careless driving in the same category as offences like forgetting to get an MOT. As a result, the man responsible for Jesse's death was in 2023, sentenced to just four years in prison. Not only was he out of prison by early 2026, but stunningly, he was caught driving again. He showed no remorse for the tragedy he had brought upon the waterman's or regard for that he might bring upon another family. Despite being handed a ten year ban, he was rightly returned to prison chair. No parent expects to outlive their child.
No parent expects to receive a phone call or visit from the police to tell them that their child is never coming home, but that is the reality. That one driver's actions has left the Waterman family living with every day out of their loss. The Waterman's have campaigned for change, calling for death caused while driving without a licence to be treated as dangerous automatically and calling for stronger deterrents. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family has to experience what they have endured, and I promise them that I would do all I can to support their campaign and ensure their voices are heard in this House.
As we consider these issues today, I ask colleagues to think about this. How can it be just that taking to the roads in full knowledge that you are not qualified is not considered dangerous. How can we claim that there is sufficient deterrent? When Jesse's killer spent so little time in prison and immediately took to the roads again upon his release, we owe it to the waterman's, to the victims and their families to ask. In cases such as this, whether sentencing powers properly reflect the profound harm that has been caused, I stand with the Waterman's as they call for change in the law.
I thank the Minister for meeting with us earlier this year. I'd be grateful if he could update us on what actions he has taken and if he would commit in this debate to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and across government to review whether causing a death while knowingly driving without a licence should automatically be treated as dangerous. Driving the law should better reflect the poor choices made before a tragedy occurs, and the consequences that families must live with forever. Chair, I want to conclude by paying tribute to the waterman's out of grief.
They have sought to make change and to protect others. I can honestly say that I can't imagine showing the strength, determination and courage that they have shown were I in their shoes. I'm humbled by their commitment and their work, but they deserve more than just our admiration. They deserve our support. We must not fail to meet their call for Sue, for Dell, for their younger son, Jesse's brother, and most importantly for Jess.
He had never passed a theory or practical driving test. He took to the roads in full knowledge that he was not qualified to drive. He showed brazen disregard for Jesse's safety and the safety of other road users. He crashed that evening and when he fled the scene to avoid arrest, he left Jess behind seriously injured. Tragically, Jess died the following day. She was three days short of her 21st birthday. The police acted to apprehend the driver, but the outcome of this case raises serious questions about whether the law properly reflects the choices people make before getting behind the wheel and the devastation that can follow when it goes wrong.
The driver responsible for Jesse's death was convicted of causing death by careless driving rather than causing death by dangerous driving, and that distinction matters. Dangerous driving will generally involve driving that falls far below the standard of expected expected of a competent driver. Careless driving can cover errors of judgment or lapses in attention. Driving without a license is not simply careless. This was not a split second mistake. It was a conscious decision taken before the journey ever began. It required premeditation. The driver knew he was unqualified, knew he should not be behind the wheel, but he chose to get behind the wheel anyway.
With Jess in the car, Jesse's death was treated in law as careless driving in the same category as offences like forgetting to get an MOT. As a result, the man responsible for Jesse's death was in 2023, sentenced to just four years in prison. Not only was he out of prison by early 2026, but stunningly, he was caught driving again. He showed no remorse for the tragedy he had brought upon the waterman's or regard for that he might bring upon another family. Despite being handed a ten year ban, he was rightly returned to prison chair. No parent expects to outlive their child.
No parent expects to receive a phone call or visit from the police to tell them that their child is never coming home, but that is the reality. That one driver's actions has left the Waterman family living with every day out of their loss. The Waterman's have campaigned for change, calling for death caused while driving without a licence to be treated as dangerous automatically and calling for stronger deterrents. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family has to experience what they have endured, and I promise them that I would do all I can to support their campaign and ensure their voices are heard in this House.
As we consider these issues today, I ask colleagues to think about this. How can it be just that taking to the roads in full knowledge that you are not qualified is not considered dangerous. How can we claim that there is sufficient deterrent? When Jesse's killer spent so little time in prison and immediately took to the roads again upon his release, we owe it to the waterman's, to the victims and their families to ask. In cases such as this, whether sentencing powers properly reflect the profound harm that has been caused, I stand with the Waterman's as they call for change in the law.
I thank the Minister for meeting with us earlier this year. I'd be grateful if he could update us on what actions he has taken and if he would commit in this debate to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and across government to review whether causing a death while knowingly driving without a licence should automatically be treated as dangerous. Driving the law should better reflect the poor choices made before a tragedy occurs, and the consequences that families must live with forever. Chair, I want to conclude by paying tribute to the waterman's out of grief.
They have sought to make change and to protect others. I can honestly say that I can't imagine showing the strength, determination and courage that they have shown were I in their shoes. I'm humbled by their commitment and their work, but they deserve more than just our admiration. They deserve our support. We must not fail to meet their call for Sue, for Dell, for their younger son, Jesse's brother, and most importantly for Jess.
15:17
15:17
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the honourable member for Cardiff West for securing this really important debate today. I also commend him for his campaigning efforts on behalf of his own constituents, especially the family of Keeley Morgan, who he referenced so powerfully in his speech today. He was absolutely right that proper deterrence should be in place for offenders. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain that her family have been through following Keeley's tragic death , and the subsequent pain of navigating the justice system to address such serious failures of accountability and justice.
Yet, sadly, this is the same story for so many of our constituents up and down the country, including one tragic case in my own North Cornwall constituency, which I'll touch on later in this debate. I'd also like to take the opportunity to commend all members across this House who spoke so powerfully about their constituents tragic cases. Sadly, far too many similar experiences, and on behalf of too many grieving families and the victims themselves, we Liberal Democrats are fighting for changes in sentencing in relation to causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving. We believe sentences handed to those who kill someone by dangerous driving should properly reflect the seriousness of their crimes.
We supported much tougher maximum sentencing and longer disqualification periods in the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act back in 2022, and we've been long calling for an updated road safety strategy to be delivered as quickly as possible following years of neglect of Britain's roads by successive governments. One shocking case relating to road safety that happened in my own constituency of North Cornwall involved the hit and run of a young man named Ryan Sultan. In 2019, Ryan was hit and killed by a drunk driver late at night, who then sped away from the scene, leaving Ryan alone in the middle of the road to die.
Yet despite killing Ryan, fleeing from the scene and then hiding from police for 36 hours, Ryan's killer was spared prison entirely and was handed a four month suspended sentence. He received a 12 month driving ban, all in a magistrates court, because the CPS couldn't prove he'd been driving dangerously. He was charged only with failing to stop and reporting a road accident, which is essentially the same charge as if he had clipped someone's wing mirror and then driven off without reporting it. Like my honourable friend for Wells and Mendip Hills, witnesses at the scene gave a no comment interview and experienced no consequences whatsoever.
Imagine the heartbreak that added to Ryan's family in response to Ryan's tragic death. His parents, Mark and Helen, as well as his sister Leanne, launched their Ryan's Law campaign. Their aim is to widen the causing death by dangerous driving offence to include failure to stop, call 999 and render aid at the scene until emergency services arrive, including that as aggravating factors. Their online petition garnered 167,000 signatures, and support for this change is extremely strong, both locally in Cornwall but also across our country. Sadly, there are hundreds of families who don't currently see justice served .
During my first two years in this place as North Cornwall's MP, I've been really taken aback by the sheer dedication and perseverance of the Sultan family in their campaign. On this vital issue, they've committed to make sure no more families in Britain are left feeling so badly let down and lost in the justice system after a road traffic collision like this, and are doing some incredible work as well with Rise Haven, which provides a safe, dedicated space for any families grieving a loved one from a road accident where they can escape and process what happened.
I've joined the Sultan family in meetings with various road ministers at the Department for transport, the most recent of these taking place last month. I've also raised their case with the previous Solicitor General, and I've tried to champion their cause in a number of debates in this House to demand that change that the Sultan family. And as we've heard today, so many families are calling for. It's why I've been so pleased to see the announcement of this government's new road safety strategy at the start of this year, noting that previous road safety strategies have successfully delivered good improvements in road safety.
But now we're almost one year on and we're still seeking clarity on when that strategy will be implemented and how the several consultations that have already taken place will feed into it. And while I appreciate the Minister, yes, I'll give way.
Yet, sadly, this is the same story for so many of our constituents up and down the country, including one tragic case in my own North Cornwall constituency, which I'll touch on later in this debate. I'd also like to take the opportunity to commend all members across this House who spoke so powerfully about their constituents tragic cases. Sadly, far too many similar experiences, and on behalf of too many grieving families and the victims themselves, we Liberal Democrats are fighting for changes in sentencing in relation to causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving. We believe sentences handed to those who kill someone by dangerous driving should properly reflect the seriousness of their crimes.
We supported much tougher maximum sentencing and longer disqualification periods in the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act back in 2022, and we've been long calling for an updated road safety strategy to be delivered as quickly as possible following years of neglect of Britain's roads by successive governments. One shocking case relating to road safety that happened in my own constituency of North Cornwall involved the hit and run of a young man named Ryan Sultan. In 2019, Ryan was hit and killed by a drunk driver late at night, who then sped away from the scene, leaving Ryan alone in the middle of the road to die.
Yet despite killing Ryan, fleeing from the scene and then hiding from police for 36 hours, Ryan's killer was spared prison entirely and was handed a four month suspended sentence. He received a 12 month driving ban, all in a magistrates court, because the CPS couldn't prove he'd been driving dangerously. He was charged only with failing to stop and reporting a road accident, which is essentially the same charge as if he had clipped someone's wing mirror and then driven off without reporting it. Like my honourable friend for Wells and Mendip Hills, witnesses at the scene gave a no comment interview and experienced no consequences whatsoever.
Imagine the heartbreak that added to Ryan's family in response to Ryan's tragic death. His parents, Mark and Helen, as well as his sister Leanne, launched their Ryan's Law campaign. Their aim is to widen the causing death by dangerous driving offence to include failure to stop, call 999 and render aid at the scene until emergency services arrive, including that as aggravating factors. Their online petition garnered 167,000 signatures, and support for this change is extremely strong, both locally in Cornwall but also across our country. Sadly, there are hundreds of families who don't currently see justice served .
During my first two years in this place as North Cornwall's MP, I've been really taken aback by the sheer dedication and perseverance of the Sultan family in their campaign. On this vital issue, they've committed to make sure no more families in Britain are left feeling so badly let down and lost in the justice system after a road traffic collision like this, and are doing some incredible work as well with Rise Haven, which provides a safe, dedicated space for any families grieving a loved one from a road accident where they can escape and process what happened.
I've joined the Sultan family in meetings with various road ministers at the Department for transport, the most recent of these taking place last month. I've also raised their case with the previous Solicitor General, and I've tried to champion their cause in a number of debates in this House to demand that change that the Sultan family. And as we've heard today, so many families are calling for. It's why I've been so pleased to see the announcement of this government's new road safety strategy at the start of this year, noting that previous road safety strategies have successfully delivered good improvements in road safety.
But now we're almost one year on and we're still seeking clarity on when that strategy will be implemented and how the several consultations that have already taken place will feed into it. And while I appreciate the Minister, yes, I'll give way.
15:23
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank my honourable friend for giving way as part of the road safety strategy with my honourable friend, agree that we should give some consideration to graduated driving licences, which has actually been introduced in Northern Ireland. And the honourable member talked about the risks for dangerous driving and mentioned drink and drugs. But youth is also a danger because kids get into a car and start to speed very, very quickly and then we end up in a tragic situation. So does my friend agree that England and Wales should maybe have in Scotland, should have the same rights as Northern Ireland?
15:23
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent contribution, and I do agree that there is a strong case to be made for graduated licences, and I think it was the honourable member from Batley and Spen that referred to international research showing the success of that scheme, and my hon. Friend mentioned the success of that in Northern Ireland, so hopefully the Minister is listening to that, but I appreciate the Minister in his place and I welcome him to his place. By the way, as well. I know he's a very diligent minister, having served with him on the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I hope the minister will be able to at least go away and speak to his colleagues in the Department for transport to get an update on the timing of that road safety strategy, which all of us in this House are still waiting to hear about. At the heart of submissions to each consultation in that strategy was the actual impact of road traffic collisions of victims on victims and their families. The human cost of inaction is staggering, with each of the 1500 fatalities on Britain's roads last year, having left a grieving family wanting justice to be properly carried out on behalf of the loved one that they had lost.
In August this year, the victims Commissioner set out six very clear recommendations in relation to road safety in their report on barriers to justice. To quote the victims Commissioner, Claire Waxman, directly behind every road death or serious injury is a victim, a grieving family whose lives are changed forever. Yet too many victims told me they felt road crime was not treated with the seriousness it deserved. Her recommendation set out formal, formal areas of improvement, which included stronger national standards for investigating road collisions, implementing trauma informed training for police officers and staff, and sustainable funding for specialist traffic collision victim support services.
So just to conclude, Madam Chair, I would ask the minister in his wind ups to confirm if he's read the Victim Commissioner's report from August in full, and if his department is working cross-departmental to implement its six recommendations, will the Minister please provide clarity around the timeline of the road safety strategy, including when the government will respond to the consultations held earlier this year? And will the minister look into adopting a much more victim centred approach in the new road safety strategy, so that families like the Sultan's, and like the parents of Keeley Morgan and the countless families we've heard about so powerfully from members today , can finally feel their voice is being properly heard.
Thank you.
I hope the minister will be able to at least go away and speak to his colleagues in the Department for transport to get an update on the timing of that road safety strategy, which all of us in this House are still waiting to hear about. At the heart of submissions to each consultation in that strategy was the actual impact of road traffic collisions of victims on victims and their families. The human cost of inaction is staggering, with each of the 1500 fatalities on Britain's roads last year, having left a grieving family wanting justice to be properly carried out on behalf of the loved one that they had lost.
In August this year, the victims Commissioner set out six very clear recommendations in relation to road safety in their report on barriers to justice. To quote the victims Commissioner, Claire Waxman, directly behind every road death or serious injury is a victim, a grieving family whose lives are changed forever. Yet too many victims told me they felt road crime was not treated with the seriousness it deserved. Her recommendation set out formal, formal areas of improvement, which included stronger national standards for investigating road collisions, implementing trauma informed training for police officers and staff, and sustainable funding for specialist traffic collision victim support services.
So just to conclude, Madam Chair, I would ask the minister in his wind ups to confirm if he's read the Victim Commissioner's report from August in full, and if his department is working cross-departmental to implement its six recommendations, will the Minister please provide clarity around the timeline of the road safety strategy, including when the government will respond to the consultations held earlier this year? And will the minister look into adopting a much more victim centred approach in the new road safety strategy, so that families like the Sultan's, and like the parents of Keeley Morgan and the countless families we've heard about so powerfully from members today , can finally feel their voice is being properly heard.
Thank you.
15:26
15:26
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd like to begin by thanking the honourable member for Cardiff West for securing this debate and for the way in which he spoke about his constituent Sian, and her daughter, Keeley. He made their case very powerfully , and preparing for this debate has given me the opportunity to read more about Sian and her campaign and her daughter Keeley. And as as the member described, Keeley was just 15 years old when she was killed in May 2023. Struck by a car while crossing the road, the driver was convicted of causing her death by careless driving and causing death while uninsured, and he was sentenced to 16 months in prison.
In my work with victims and campaigners, I've got to know that until you speak to people individually, you don't always know the ins and outs of every case. And I wouldn't want to say anything that was incorrect. But what I can say confidently is that a 15 year old girl died. A family has been changed forever, and the sentence was measured in months, not years. And I know how I would feel if my similarly aged niece was killed in the same circumstances. With the criminal background of the individual concerned, and I would want to speak out for Sian and the way in which she's campaigned.
In response to that, more than 11,800 people have signed her petition calling for tougher sentences and for changes in how those cases are handled. As other members have said , under the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, introduced by the last government, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs, was raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. I know those weren't the exact same charges that were involved in this case, but that I think demonstrates an attempt to recognise these sorts of offences and the impact that they make.
But as the member for Strangford described, maximum sentences are one thing. What judges give her another. If you don't mind, I'll talk about a family that I have worked directly with and can speak more confidently about that. Glenn and Rebecca Ewens, who lost their daughter Violet Grace in March 2017 when she was four years old. She was walking with her grandmother in Saint Helens when a stolen car driven at 83mph in a 30 mile an hour zone hit them. Violet Grace died and her grandmother was left with life changing injuries. The driver fled the scene.
He was later sentenced to nine years and four months, but because he pleaded guilty, he received a reduction and he was released after around four and a half years. And as Glenn powerfully describes, he spent less time in prison than his daughter was alive. I've been proud to support Glenn and his family, and they're part of a group called justice for victims, and in what I hope can be an inspiration to Sian, they also launched a petition and campaigned vociferously in their daughter's memory. And they were a big part of why that maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased.
And I mentioned them as well, because like so many of the cases mentioned today, these are the people that really understand what it is to not get justice, to care deeply and love someone deeply and live in a country where you expect that if you do the right thing and someone does the wrong thing to you, the system will deliver justice to you. You can't bring somebody back and you don't want revenge. You want justice. And I think the concerns in these cases, but actually across very many other cases, demonstrate that again and again for many decades.
This isn't a one government or another government for many decades. I don't think the justice system in this country delivers justice anywhere near as often as it should do, particularly when it comes to serious offences and serious offenders who commit crimes again and again during our time in government, we did take some steps to try and address this. We did this in a major way by rolling back the automatic halfway release of offenders to two thirds for some offenders. We've talked today about sentences, but we have to always remember that whatever sentence is passed in the court, the amount of time someone spends in prison can be very different to that.
And prior to that change, essentially everybody outside of a life sentence only served half of their sentence anyway. That was an important step. But what's happened under this government, I'm afraid since then, they've taken a sledgehammer to the ability of victims to get justice by introducing even earlier, one third release for most offenders sent to prison for those crimes. So in this case, for example, prior to later changes, we managed to help secure offenders, just like the person that killed Sian's daughter would have only been asked to spend a third of their time in prison.
I think that was disgraceful. And what did they actually want to do? What was the actual aim of the government? They wanted to make it even earlier for those responsible for causing offences, not just like this, but causing death by dangerous driving, rape, a whole series of very serious crimes. This government attempted to let them out of prison earlier. To the member who sponsored the debate, talked about whether or not Parliament listens enough. Actually, very many MPs from across different parties did listen to what people said about that and attempted to stop the government from doing that.
We put forward an amendment.
In my work with victims and campaigners, I've got to know that until you speak to people individually, you don't always know the ins and outs of every case. And I wouldn't want to say anything that was incorrect. But what I can say confidently is that a 15 year old girl died. A family has been changed forever, and the sentence was measured in months, not years. And I know how I would feel if my similarly aged niece was killed in the same circumstances. With the criminal background of the individual concerned, and I would want to speak out for Sian and the way in which she's campaigned.
In response to that, more than 11,800 people have signed her petition calling for tougher sentences and for changes in how those cases are handled. As other members have said , under the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, introduced by the last government, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs, was raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. I know those weren't the exact same charges that were involved in this case, but that I think demonstrates an attempt to recognise these sorts of offences and the impact that they make.
But as the member for Strangford described, maximum sentences are one thing. What judges give her another. If you don't mind, I'll talk about a family that I have worked directly with and can speak more confidently about that. Glenn and Rebecca Ewens, who lost their daughter Violet Grace in March 2017 when she was four years old. She was walking with her grandmother in Saint Helens when a stolen car driven at 83mph in a 30 mile an hour zone hit them. Violet Grace died and her grandmother was left with life changing injuries. The driver fled the scene.
He was later sentenced to nine years and four months, but because he pleaded guilty, he received a reduction and he was released after around four and a half years. And as Glenn powerfully describes, he spent less time in prison than his daughter was alive. I've been proud to support Glenn and his family, and they're part of a group called justice for victims, and in what I hope can be an inspiration to Sian, they also launched a petition and campaigned vociferously in their daughter's memory. And they were a big part of why that maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased.
And I mentioned them as well, because like so many of the cases mentioned today, these are the people that really understand what it is to not get justice, to care deeply and love someone deeply and live in a country where you expect that if you do the right thing and someone does the wrong thing to you, the system will deliver justice to you. You can't bring somebody back and you don't want revenge. You want justice. And I think the concerns in these cases, but actually across very many other cases, demonstrate that again and again for many decades.
This isn't a one government or another government for many decades. I don't think the justice system in this country delivers justice anywhere near as often as it should do, particularly when it comes to serious offences and serious offenders who commit crimes again and again during our time in government, we did take some steps to try and address this. We did this in a major way by rolling back the automatic halfway release of offenders to two thirds for some offenders. We've talked today about sentences, but we have to always remember that whatever sentence is passed in the court, the amount of time someone spends in prison can be very different to that.
And prior to that change, essentially everybody outside of a life sentence only served half of their sentence anyway. That was an important step. But what's happened under this government, I'm afraid since then, they've taken a sledgehammer to the ability of victims to get justice by introducing even earlier, one third release for most offenders sent to prison for those crimes. So in this case, for example, prior to later changes, we managed to help secure offenders, just like the person that killed Sian's daughter would have only been asked to spend a third of their time in prison.
I think that was disgraceful. And what did they actually want to do? What was the actual aim of the government? They wanted to make it even earlier for those responsible for causing offences, not just like this, but causing death by dangerous driving, rape, a whole series of very serious crimes. This government attempted to let them out of prison earlier. To the member who sponsored the debate, talked about whether or not Parliament listens enough. Actually, very many MPs from across different parties did listen to what people said about that and attempted to stop the government from doing that.
We put forward an amendment.
15:31
15:31
15:31
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Go on to speak about that in detail. Absolutely. And I think it's important for people watching and listening to know when the minister gets up and gives lots of warm words about this. This was the minister that specifically argued to let people, just like this gentleman involved in this case, get out of prison after serving just a third of their sentence. It was only as a result of campaigners like Sian in other areas and campaigners such as the one the member mentioned fought the government and had to tell their stories again and again in public.
In what I'm sure the petitioner knows is a deeply traumatic thing to have to do, that the government was forced into into u-turning. And all of this was based on a set of plans for an independent review that did absolutely nothing to engage with what the victims actually want from sensing policy when it comes to justice. So, as I said, this is an issue that's gone on for decades. There was an opportunity to grapple with it properly, to seek to understand why is there such a big gap? Why do we see these campaigns again and again, not just in relation to driving offences, but a whole series of offences where victims feel so badly let down?
Nothing was done to engage with what victims actually want to see from sentencing. And even today, those early releases are described by this government as earned releases, when in fact they're automatic. So these people automatically walk away from prison even earlier. Thank goodness, because of campaigners, it hasn't applied to those more serious offences and I welcome that. But it isn't only on this issue that Parliament sought to improve the situation. During the passage of that bill, there was actually an amendment that was put forward to provide automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving, and again, hundreds of MPs are clubbed together to defeat that amendment, including, I'm afraid, some of the many MPs who have spoken in the debate today in support of those people who have been affected by those sorts of cases.
I think I understand the honourable member didn't actually oppose these measures and saw the sense in what many other MPs were seeing, and I congratulate him for not having supported some of these measures and certainly not sought to stand against them. Madam chair, I think that does leave the minister having to ask us some basic questions, answer some basic questions. Does the government believe that the current sentencing framework and the way in which it's been applied, does properly reflect the seriousness of causing someone's death through dangerous or careless driving? If the answer is yes, the minister must explain why so many families and members of the public believe otherwise.
If the answer is no, they need to tell us what they need, what they intend to do about it. And as other members have described, there are other things in the short term that the government could do and that we support. Absolutely. The ULS should be extended to those that cause death by careless driving. Surely if a case is so serious that it's led to the death of the person it should be eligible for? For that, we continue to want to see automatic disqualification for those that are convicted of offences of careless or causing, causing the death
In what I'm sure the petitioner knows is a deeply traumatic thing to have to do, that the government was forced into into u-turning. And all of this was based on a set of plans for an independent review that did absolutely nothing to engage with what the victims actually want from sensing policy when it comes to justice. So, as I said, this is an issue that's gone on for decades. There was an opportunity to grapple with it properly, to seek to understand why is there such a big gap? Why do we see these campaigns again and again, not just in relation to driving offences, but a whole series of offences where victims feel so badly let down?
Nothing was done to engage with what victims actually want to see from sentencing. And even today, those early releases are described by this government as earned releases, when in fact they're automatic. So these people automatically walk away from prison even earlier. Thank goodness, because of campaigners, it hasn't applied to those more serious offences and I welcome that. But it isn't only on this issue that Parliament sought to improve the situation. During the passage of that bill, there was actually an amendment that was put forward to provide automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving, and again, hundreds of MPs are clubbed together to defeat that amendment, including, I'm afraid, some of the many MPs who have spoken in the debate today in support of those people who have been affected by those sorts of cases.
I think I understand the honourable member didn't actually oppose these measures and saw the sense in what many other MPs were seeing, and I congratulate him for not having supported some of these measures and certainly not sought to stand against them. Madam chair, I think that does leave the minister having to ask us some basic questions, answer some basic questions. Does the government believe that the current sentencing framework and the way in which it's been applied, does properly reflect the seriousness of causing someone's death through dangerous or careless driving? If the answer is yes, the minister must explain why so many families and members of the public believe otherwise.
If the answer is no, they need to tell us what they need, what they intend to do about it. And as other members have described, there are other things in the short term that the government could do and that we support. Absolutely. The ULS should be extended to those that cause death by careless driving. Surely if a case is so serious that it's led to the death of the person it should be eligible for? For that, we continue to want to see automatic disqualification for those that are convicted of offences of careless or causing, causing the death
15:34
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Automatic disqualification for those that are convicted of offences of careless or causing, causing the death of through careless or dangerous driving. And I think there's absolutely merit in providing the police, for example, an opportunity to ensure that someone's licence is temporarily revoked if they consider the facts on the ground. We know the police seek bail conditions all the time to restrict what people can do in relation to them being suspects prior to conviction. I have no reason to see why it shouldn't also be applied. But there's a broader question that this government and previous governments have failed to grip and and seek to sort, which is that we have a massive yawning gap between what the public and victims and families, just like Sean, want to see when it comes to serious offences and what they actually get when it comes to justice in the court.
I think that gap is too huge. We're committed to seeking to address that if we're back in government. But whoever gets back in government, we have to finally grip this, even if it's difficult, even if it's expensive, so that we don't see again and again victims deeply let down by a system. They expect to be there for them when they're sadly the victim of a serious crime.
I think that gap is too huge. We're committed to seeking to address that if we're back in government. But whoever gets back in government, we have to finally grip this, even if it's difficult, even if it's expensive, so that we don't see again and again victims deeply let down by a system. They expect to be there for them when they're sadly the victim of a serious crime.
15:35
15:35
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my hon. Friend the member for Cardiff West for securing this incredibly important debate and raising these incredibly important issues, both in the chamber but also outside the chamber with me and and others in the preceding weeks. But I want to start, as many have, and pay tribute to his constituents, Sian, who is here today. She's shown extraordinary courage in fighting to make sure her daughter Keeley's death wasn't in vain and to try and make changes to improve the country for others. And that is something that we should applaud.
It's not easy and it's something that is hugely admirable. I want to apologize to her as well, because she wrote to me through her member of Parliament and hasn't received a response in prompt time. There has been an error in my office. It's not acceptable, and I'm getting to the bottom of it, and I look forward to meeting her later today, hopefully to talk about the substantive issue, but also to apologise to her personally as well. And I want to thank my hon. Friend the member for Hertford and Stortford. I, of course, met with him and the Watermans, and it's good to see Derek and Sue here again today.
After that meeting, I committed, Madam Chair, to raise the specific issues of their campaign and the tragic death of Jess with the then roads Minister, which I did both in writing and then met with her and her officials and indeed her special advisers, who are political appointees in the Department of Transport, to make sure those issues are really high on the agenda. As the government's strategy on road safety comes into force, there is more that we can do. It is a work in progress. The the Roads Minister has changed since then, but I've also met with him.
And indeed, because of the debate today, I've written to him again this morning to make sure that both the campaigns and the issues we're talking about today are right at the top of his agenda. It's not me trying to duck away from many of the issues that have been raised in this debate, but some of them are for the Department for transport. I will try and address as many of them as possible, but if not, I will make sure that the members who raise those issues will get a written response from the roads minister, who deals with some of the road safety issues.
But of course, the sentencing aspects I'll try and deal with. Yes, of course.
It's not easy and it's something that is hugely admirable. I want to apologize to her as well, because she wrote to me through her member of Parliament and hasn't received a response in prompt time. There has been an error in my office. It's not acceptable, and I'm getting to the bottom of it, and I look forward to meeting her later today, hopefully to talk about the substantive issue, but also to apologise to her personally as well. And I want to thank my hon. Friend the member for Hertford and Stortford. I, of course, met with him and the Watermans, and it's good to see Derek and Sue here again today.
After that meeting, I committed, Madam Chair, to raise the specific issues of their campaign and the tragic death of Jess with the then roads Minister, which I did both in writing and then met with her and her officials and indeed her special advisers, who are political appointees in the Department of Transport, to make sure those issues are really high on the agenda. As the government's strategy on road safety comes into force, there is more that we can do. It is a work in progress. The the Roads Minister has changed since then, but I've also met with him.
And indeed, because of the debate today, I've written to him again this morning to make sure that both the campaigns and the issues we're talking about today are right at the top of his agenda. It's not me trying to duck away from many of the issues that have been raised in this debate, but some of them are for the Department for transport. I will try and address as many of them as possible, but if not, I will make sure that the members who raise those issues will get a written response from the roads minister, who deals with some of the road safety issues.
But of course, the sentencing aspects I'll try and deal with. Yes, of course.
15:37
15:37
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Mr.. To his response to the crisis, I've asked my honourable friend and colleague to my left hand side, referred to the graduated driving licence changes in Northern Ireland. I want to ask that question because we have done it after a long consultation, after deliberations with all the bodies concerned, and it seemed to be a very, very strategic way forward. Certainly it was has been received quite well by all sections of the general public in Northern Ireland.
Is that something, Minister, that the government here and your Department would consider?
Is that something, Minister, that the government here and your Department would consider?
15:38
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Critically, it's not my department to consider, but the DFT, the Department for transport is certainly looking at and is alive to the evidence that have been raised, I think, by a number of members from internationally. I can't get ahead of what the Roads Minister will set out, but I will make sure that he's heard the contributions from today's debate as well. And I think I want to thank all members from across the chamber on raising very difficult cases, perhaps in particular, if I may, my hon. Friend the member for Mitcham and Morden. I wasn't aware of the work that Debbie has done around Lily's tragic death, and it was very moving to hear about that, and in particular, the cafe that so many people will enjoy in her memory.
I'm very happy to meet with Debbie if that would be helpful to her, or indeed, I will get the Roads minister to meet her if that would be more beneficial. Yes.
I'm very happy to meet with Debbie if that would be helpful to her, or indeed, I will get the Roads minister to meet her if that would be more beneficial. Yes.
15:39
15:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Debbie and Donna have both met with previous the previous Road Safety Minister to discuss their case and their reasons for asking for licence to be suspended after an accident, and then for there to be a lifetime ban. But I thank him for his offer to meet them. I'm sure Debbie will be marching her way towards him as she hears him speak.
15:39
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I look forward to Debbie marching into my office. Victims do not want to meet with a conveyor belt of ministers from all different departments. It is important that we do have those meetings because it's important that they are heard. It's important for us to understand that behind every statistic, every paper we get, reading in our box is a human life and a human tragedy. And so it's critical that we do meet with her, and I look forward to meeting with her in due course. But what they want is action. And I hope that as I develop my speech, that she'll be reassured that we are taking these issues seriously and that we are taking action.
But I look forward to meeting with her and many other members who maybe perhaps intervened, are no longer here, have raised important cases. And it struck me, actually, as a member of Parliament only for two years, just over two years. Now that you get exposed as an MP to different parts of our country that perhaps you don't as a normal citizen. And one of them is just the prevalence and tragedy of road deaths, because you as an MP, often get notified if there has been an accident or if there has been a criminal offence committed on our roads that has led to an injury or a serious injury or a death, and it is far too regular in our country.
And when you meet with the families, as I have done in my constituency in Rother Valley, it stays with you. So I'm determined to play my role to try and bring about safer roads. I just want to turn to the sentencing framework as it is today, because there has been some conflation between death by careless and death by dangerous. I'm certainly not trying to educate members at all, but it's my responsibility to on record, set out the regime as it is today. An honourable members know that sentencing within the framework that set out in legislation is rightly a matter for the independent courts.
Judges consider the facts on each case, weigh up any aggravating and mitigating factors and follow relevant Sentencing Council guidelines before arriving at a sentence that is just and proportionate and just part. If I may just touch on this, some of the issues that I think have emerged in this debate are perhaps less about sentencing, although sometimes certainly, but are about the charging decision. And this was an issue that I discussed with my hon. Friend and the Watermans about the CPS charging decision, and what offence a defendant is charged with, is obviously and should be independent of any government.
Any government effect, but clearly they need to involve the victims in that decision, not do what they say, but involve them, communicate and engage with them. Too often I meet with victims in this area of road traffic accident, road traffic offences, but also others where they simply haven't been engaged at all. So I am talking to the victims Minister to ensure that the CPS, where they can, where it's appropriate, they should be communicating with victims to make sure that charging decision is the right one. The law must reflect both the harm caused, but also how responsible the offender was for causing it.
Because whilst two drivers can cause the same terrible outcome, they may have done so through very different actions. That doesn't, of course, make one's family's loss any less than others, but it does mean that the law has to distinguish between these different levels of blame. So I'll turn to the offences themselves. The most serious driving offences causing death by dangerous driving. This is where someone's driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and where the danger should have been obvious. We are talking here about things like excessive speed racing, dangerous overtaking for offences committed since June 2022.
As mentioned by the the official opposition spokesperson, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is now life imprisonment. There is also a minimum of five year driving disqualification and compulsory extended driving test before an offender can return to the road. These are tough penalties and rightly so. They give judges the power to impose the most serious punishment in the very worst cases. There is also the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. This covers driving that falls below the expected standard, but doesn't reach the higher threshold for dangerous driving. The maximum sentence is a five year imprisonment alongside a minimum 12 month driving ban, and I raise the issue of the CPS because, of course, what the defendant is charged with is what the judge and the court can deal with, and so that charging decision is often just as important to get right for victims and families and wider society than the final sentencing, which then may not be seem fair or sufficient to victims.
The distinction, therefore, between dangerous and careless driving is really important in our law, although I of course recognise, as I've said before, that it's it's no, it's difficult for grieving families, families to accept when clearly their loss they have suffered is exactly the same. I want to deal with some of the specifics that have been raised in the debate, in particular by my friend, the member for Cardiff West. Driving disqualification and looking at whether there should be automated disqualification. I think the honourable member also raised this. This is part of live discussions that I've had with the Department for transport.
It strikes me, and I'm very happy to put this on record, that I have come across too many cases where driving disqualification is seen as is not taken as seriously as part of the punishment, and often it runs concurrently with a prison prison sentence. So you have this absurd situation where you can't obviously drive in prison. You get out and you've never had any disqualification of driving at all. I raised this in a meeting I had with the chair of the Sentencing Council. Perhaps it was after the meeting with the Watermans that I raised it personally with her.
I think it's not breaching any state secrets. She wasn't persuaded of that. I've asked them to look again. The DFT are also doing work, looking at the evidence to try and make sure that we have evidence based policy, and I'm going to continue pushing how we can ensure that driving disqualification is is is used in a more muscular fashion by the judiciary. They have the power. So Parliament in this case, there's an issue about automating, but they have the power to implement lifelong driving bans. But too often they don't seem to be considered. Now, I'm not criticising independent judges.
I never would do that. But we do need to have a look at what we need to do as a government, as a parliament, but also sentencing councils role in trying to push that forward. Yes.
But I look forward to meeting with her and many other members who maybe perhaps intervened, are no longer here, have raised important cases. And it struck me, actually, as a member of Parliament only for two years, just over two years. Now that you get exposed as an MP to different parts of our country that perhaps you don't as a normal citizen. And one of them is just the prevalence and tragedy of road deaths, because you as an MP, often get notified if there has been an accident or if there has been a criminal offence committed on our roads that has led to an injury or a serious injury or a death, and it is far too regular in our country.
And when you meet with the families, as I have done in my constituency in Rother Valley, it stays with you. So I'm determined to play my role to try and bring about safer roads. I just want to turn to the sentencing framework as it is today, because there has been some conflation between death by careless and death by dangerous. I'm certainly not trying to educate members at all, but it's my responsibility to on record, set out the regime as it is today. An honourable members know that sentencing within the framework that set out in legislation is rightly a matter for the independent courts.
Judges consider the facts on each case, weigh up any aggravating and mitigating factors and follow relevant Sentencing Council guidelines before arriving at a sentence that is just and proportionate and just part. If I may just touch on this, some of the issues that I think have emerged in this debate are perhaps less about sentencing, although sometimes certainly, but are about the charging decision. And this was an issue that I discussed with my hon. Friend and the Watermans about the CPS charging decision, and what offence a defendant is charged with, is obviously and should be independent of any government.
Any government effect, but clearly they need to involve the victims in that decision, not do what they say, but involve them, communicate and engage with them. Too often I meet with victims in this area of road traffic accident, road traffic offences, but also others where they simply haven't been engaged at all. So I am talking to the victims Minister to ensure that the CPS, where they can, where it's appropriate, they should be communicating with victims to make sure that charging decision is the right one. The law must reflect both the harm caused, but also how responsible the offender was for causing it.
Because whilst two drivers can cause the same terrible outcome, they may have done so through very different actions. That doesn't, of course, make one's family's loss any less than others, but it does mean that the law has to distinguish between these different levels of blame. So I'll turn to the offences themselves. The most serious driving offences causing death by dangerous driving. This is where someone's driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and where the danger should have been obvious. We are talking here about things like excessive speed racing, dangerous overtaking for offences committed since June 2022.
As mentioned by the the official opposition spokesperson, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is now life imprisonment. There is also a minimum of five year driving disqualification and compulsory extended driving test before an offender can return to the road. These are tough penalties and rightly so. They give judges the power to impose the most serious punishment in the very worst cases. There is also the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. This covers driving that falls below the expected standard, but doesn't reach the higher threshold for dangerous driving. The maximum sentence is a five year imprisonment alongside a minimum 12 month driving ban, and I raise the issue of the CPS because, of course, what the defendant is charged with is what the judge and the court can deal with, and so that charging decision is often just as important to get right for victims and families and wider society than the final sentencing, which then may not be seem fair or sufficient to victims.
The distinction, therefore, between dangerous and careless driving is really important in our law, although I of course recognise, as I've said before, that it's it's no, it's difficult for grieving families, families to accept when clearly their loss they have suffered is exactly the same. I want to deal with some of the specifics that have been raised in the debate, in particular by my friend, the member for Cardiff West. Driving disqualification and looking at whether there should be automated disqualification. I think the honourable member also raised this. This is part of live discussions that I've had with the Department for transport.
It strikes me, and I'm very happy to put this on record, that I have come across too many cases where driving disqualification is seen as is not taken as seriously as part of the punishment, and often it runs concurrently with a prison prison sentence. So you have this absurd situation where you can't obviously drive in prison. You get out and you've never had any disqualification of driving at all. I raised this in a meeting I had with the chair of the Sentencing Council. Perhaps it was after the meeting with the Watermans that I raised it personally with her.
I think it's not breaching any state secrets. She wasn't persuaded of that. I've asked them to look again. The DFT are also doing work, looking at the evidence to try and make sure that we have evidence based policy, and I'm going to continue pushing how we can ensure that driving disqualification is is is used in a more muscular fashion by the judiciary. They have the power. So Parliament in this case, there's an issue about automating, but they have the power to implement lifelong driving bans. But too often they don't seem to be considered. Now, I'm not criticising independent judges.
I never would do that. But we do need to have a look at what we need to do as a government, as a parliament, but also sentencing councils role in trying to push that forward. Yes.
15:45
15:45
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Absolutely. There's a sensing framework and Parliament has somewhat of a the judges have a role in applying that. But it would be totally within Parliament's remit to make it mandatory to make it automatic. And we could seek to do that. And a number of MPs did vote for that last year and were blocked from doing that by his government minister.
15:45
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
He's absolutely right to say that Parliament could pass a law to have an automatic driving ban. Now it does get a it does get more complex as to automating upon before conviction. I think he was referring to post-conviction of dangerous driving. There is a general principle we try as a government. Previous governments before us as well to give judicial discretion. Every case is somewhat different, but I accept the point. I'm not trying to hide away from the argument. The judges have the power. We need to get the evidence to see how often they're using it and why they're not using it, and understand that.
And sometimes legislating to force judges hands can actually lead to further absurdities and injustices in very different ways. So we do try and offer judicial discretion because every case is different. But I accept the point he's made. Yes, of course.
And sometimes legislating to force judges hands can actually lead to further absurdities and injustices in very different ways. So we do try and offer judicial discretion because every case is different. But I accept the point he's made. Yes, of course.
15:46
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you very much. I regard this as really, really serious. I hope he's going to address the matter of potential suspension immediately after an accident, so that people are not driving around for a year, two years, three years, four years while they're waiting for a court case. But I wonder whether in the same way as somebody who has been the perpetrator of sexual abuse, domestic abuse or whatever, they have to report in to their local, they have to say where they're living, and then the local police are aware of where that person is living, whether in fact, one could then make sure that the local police are aware that X person is not permitted to drive for a period of five years, ten years or forever, because they are going to be the people that pick that up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
15:47
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
She's right to raise this point about the period before trial or conviction. We know too often that can be far too long. It isn't as straightforward as immediately after the event, because no doubt she will be aware that in often there is a very complex investigations that have to take place. Of course, it can be a bail condition. And again, I'm trying trying to assess why in too many cases it's not used. And I remember actually it comes to mind about the case that's raised by me, by the honourable member for West Bromwich, where some well, not a gentleman, a someone had been bailed for death by dangerous driving, I think, and immediately got in a car and got convicted of drunk driving just a few hours later.
Now, that is an absurdity and I think we have to start taking driving offences more generally, whether low level or high level. More seriously. Now, the road safety strategy does, I think, show that and want to seek to do that. We want to get on with that, and I'm pushing the Roads Minister to work with me to do that and have that reflected in sentencing guidelines as much as possible. Graduated driving licence was raised by my hon. Friend the member for Cardiff West as well as sentence. I hope I've dealt with that. It is on the agenda.
It's very much a DFT issue, so I don't want to comment too much sentencing guidelines as well. I'm in a constitutional dialogue with the Sentencing Council on lots of issues, and this is one of them. I'll be careful how what else I say on it. But it's very I'm very much alive to it. And in terms of the ULS, I am a very alive to this as well. The Law Commission are doing work on the ULS, as I think my hon. Friend will no doubt know from his time working with the law officers, and we need to assess whether death by careless driving should be added to that list, and I can commit to.
I can commit to doing that today, sir.
Now, that is an absurdity and I think we have to start taking driving offences more generally, whether low level or high level. More seriously. Now, the road safety strategy does, I think, show that and want to seek to do that. We want to get on with that, and I'm pushing the Roads Minister to work with me to do that and have that reflected in sentencing guidelines as much as possible. Graduated driving licence was raised by my hon. Friend the member for Cardiff West as well as sentence. I hope I've dealt with that. It is on the agenda.
It's very much a DFT issue, so I don't want to comment too much sentencing guidelines as well. I'm in a constitutional dialogue with the Sentencing Council on lots of issues, and this is one of them. I'll be careful how what else I say on it. But it's very I'm very much alive to it. And in terms of the ULS, I am a very alive to this as well. The Law Commission are doing work on the ULS, as I think my hon. Friend will no doubt know from his time working with the law officers, and we need to assess whether death by careless driving should be added to that list, and I can commit to.
I can commit to doing that today, sir.
15:49
15:49
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Well, I'm happy to write to Law Commission to ask them whether to consider that specific issue. I'm going to consider it anyway, so I don't really mind whether the law I want the Law Commission to do it. Evidence would be helpful, but we will do that nonetheless. Working with the Attorney General office, of course, there will be no doubt some effects to that, but let's look into it and see what we can do. And he talked, I think, finally, about prevention and ultimately, again, the road safety strategy at its heart tries to reach its target of 65% reduction by prevention.
And there is a serious amount of investment. This is the first road safety strategy in a decade. It's backed with, I think, £80 million in prevention prevention work, not an insignificant amount of money. We'd like to do more, no doubt, but I know the Roads Minister will be working hard in terms of other questions from members about road safety strategy more generally, I can't I can't really it's not my it's not my strategy. So it's difficult for me to comment on timings and when when that will be, but I can I will ask for the roads Minister to write to members who've raised specific points on that, and I'll make sure my office gets in touch with him on that.
Yes, of course, one last time.
And there is a serious amount of investment. This is the first road safety strategy in a decade. It's backed with, I think, £80 million in prevention prevention work, not an insignificant amount of money. We'd like to do more, no doubt, but I know the Roads Minister will be working hard in terms of other questions from members about road safety strategy more generally, I can't I can't really it's not my it's not my strategy. So it's difficult for me to comment on timings and when when that will be, but I can I will ask for the roads Minister to write to members who've raised specific points on that, and I'll make sure my office gets in touch with him on that.
Yes, of course, one last time.
15:50
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
So I, I know everybody has the right not to comment, but it is simply outrageous when that has no weight. I mean, it would be different if someone had had some sort of medical episode, which meant that they were not able to remember what had happened, but where that is clearly not the case, and someone is advised by their solicitor not to comment throughout the whole of all of this. It's really very, very tough on the families, and I wonder if he might consider that point and seeing if there's a way in which one can put some weight behind that and also speak to the victims minister about that, because it is something that happens repeatedly.
15:51
15:51
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Raises a wider point about defendant conduct in as part of the criminal investigation, how that should be taken into account in the sentencing. I mean, there are mechanisms by which it is already. Because the judge will consider a large degree of factors, including if the defendant has taken responsibility for their actions, if they have undertaken a no comment interview consistently and simply not engaged with the criminal investigation process that should be taken into account by sentencing.
Yes, this is the final time.
Yes, this is the final time.
15:51
15:52
15:52
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
The Lord Chancellor, I think, announced last week further action on trying to. As much as is possible, get defendants to face up to their actions. Frankly, that's what we're talking about in terms of I don't think you can force a defendant to give answers if they don't want to give answers. But you can certainly reflect that in the sentencing regime, and it is reflected in sentencing regime. But if there's any other suggestions about how we can go further, be more than happy to hear from her as a member of the justice committee, she's always she always does the she'll write to me signal, and I look forward to responding to her in due course.
Madam chair, in conclusion, I want again to thank all members who've raised this issue. I think there's just just. Okay. Yeah.
Madam chair, in conclusion, I want again to thank all members who've raised this issue. I think there's just just. Okay. Yeah.
15:52
15:53
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
No, too often, too often, there are families who feel let down by the justice system in lots of different ways. Whether that is the final sentence, whether that is the way they were treated, the the case that the honourable friend from Cardiff West raises about misinformation being given about options at the end can cause huge damage. And I'm not criticising the individuals in that case because they are hard working individuals and it's a complex area of law. But we just need to get some of these basics right to make the system as amenable as humanly possible for victims when they're navigating the most traumatic time in their lives.
And too often it doesn't. And I accept also sentences as well. Now we are in a complex constitutional relationship where I'm not going to criticise independent, independent judges and sentences given in any individual case. It would be wrong for me to do so. But of course I accept that too often victims feel that justice hasn't been done, and I do. Just. Finally, Madam Chair, in conclusion, I think there is a real disconnect between when I knock on doors in my constituency. You know, road safety is really top of their priority list in so many, especially rural villages, which was raised by the honourable member and how often we talk about it in this place.
And I think that if we can do all of us do our bit to raise these issues with myself, but also across government, we will be doing a service to the country and of course, to victims more. So I just want to thank everyone, in particular those in the public gallery, and I look forward to continuing this discussion and taking action in the coming weeks and months.
And too often it doesn't. And I accept also sentences as well. Now we are in a complex constitutional relationship where I'm not going to criticise independent, independent judges and sentences given in any individual case. It would be wrong for me to do so. But of course I accept that too often victims feel that justice hasn't been done, and I do. Just. Finally, Madam Chair, in conclusion, I think there is a real disconnect between when I knock on doors in my constituency. You know, road safety is really top of their priority list in so many, especially rural villages, which was raised by the honourable member and how often we talk about it in this place.
And I think that if we can do all of us do our bit to raise these issues with myself, but also across government, we will be doing a service to the country and of course, to victims more. So I just want to thank everyone, in particular those in the public gallery, and I look forward to continuing this discussion and taking action in the coming weeks and months.
15:54
15:54
15:54
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, chair, for your for chairing this. So excellent. And to everybody who's contributed today, I think it's been incredibly humbling to hear the stories of loss and of tragedy and the prevalence of it, as the minister said across the piece. And I'm particularly touched, of course, to have Sian and her family here and of course, Sue Waterman as well, to hear of these inspiring examples of, and of course, Lily's law, my honourable friend for Mitcham and Morden said, channeling grief and tragedy into ensuring that people don't have to go through this again so that we can learn lessons from their deaths is inspiring.
But it's something that has been we've been talking about for too long and too often in this place. So I'm very grateful to what the minister has said about some of the calls for action that I and others have called for, about some of the actions that he is going to take forward. I think anything he can do with the new Roads Minister to impress upon him the urgency of this situation for for myself and no doubt Sian, to to meet with him again for my calls for action from those of the Wharton's, from Lily's Law and others who have been speaking here.
I think anything that he can do to drive this change across government will be central in order to ensure this pernicious. Severity. The severity of this is just dealt with because it is something that has just gone on for too long. I will also ask that when he is continuing his discussions and the constitutional poll that he talks to, if he could perhaps speak to the Chief Prosecutor of Wales for some of the challenges they found in why sentencing was pegged in this, in the specific case of my constituent, why they had to go at the lesser offence, because I think there could be some invaluable lessons that he could learn as part of the wider framework that he's putting together.
But I'll just finish, Madam Chair, by thanking everyone for contributing. But first and foremost to thank all the victims, the you know, my condolences to all the constituents that have been referenced, and particularly to Sharon and her family, for inspiring me and allowing me to work with them in order to drive change through.
But it's something that has been we've been talking about for too long and too often in this place. So I'm very grateful to what the minister has said about some of the calls for action that I and others have called for, about some of the actions that he is going to take forward. I think anything he can do with the new Roads Minister to impress upon him the urgency of this situation for for myself and no doubt Sian, to to meet with him again for my calls for action from those of the Wharton's, from Lily's Law and others who have been speaking here.
I think anything that he can do to drive this change across government will be central in order to ensure this pernicious. Severity. The severity of this is just dealt with because it is something that has just gone on for too long. I will also ask that when he is continuing his discussions and the constitutional poll that he talks to, if he could perhaps speak to the Chief Prosecutor of Wales for some of the challenges they found in why sentencing was pegged in this, in the specific case of my constituent, why they had to go at the lesser offence, because I think there could be some invaluable lessons that he could learn as part of the wider framework that he's putting together.
But I'll just finish, Madam Chair, by thanking everyone for contributing. But first and foremost to thank all the victims, the you know, my condolences to all the constituents that have been referenced, and particularly to Sharon and her family, for inspiring me and allowing me to work with them in order to drive change through.
15:56
15:56
16:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order. I will call Sarah Gibson to move the motion, and I will then call the minister to respond. I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate , and the minister. There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention, for 30 minute debates. Order, order! Sarah Gibson to move the motion.
16:00
16:00
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Your chairmanship, Madam Chair, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to secure this debate on the performance of HCG in the South West and in Wiltshire in particular. Over recent months, a growing number of constituents, carers and healthcare professionals have contacted me, and I want to open this debate by thanking some of the staff who have stuck their heads above the parapet and asked us, their elected representatives, to put Hcg's performance on the minister's radar. Some of those members of staff who are sitting in the gallery today in this debate, and I thank them again for coming.
The community served by HCG contract are diverse. Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire each have their own challenges, demographics and patterns of service use. The issue is not whether one area matters more than another, it's whether local circumstances are properly understood. District nurses covering rural Wiltshire face very different challenges from those working in more urban areas. Yet many of the staff who contacted me feel that those differences have not been properly recognised. Wiltshire is a large rural county. Patients can live miles from healthcare facilities. Community nursing teams often spend significant amounts of their days travelling between appointments , and aggregate figures for a large contract area tell part of the story, but they can also obscure local pressures and local problems.
A successful service model is one that understands those differences and responds to them, and I'm afraid I have concluded that HCG does not understand those differences. When responsibility for Community Health Services was awarded to HCG in October 2020, four, patients were promised more joined up care, easier access to services and simpler overall experiences. A I absolutely will.
The community served by HCG contract are diverse. Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire each have their own challenges, demographics and patterns of service use. The issue is not whether one area matters more than another, it's whether local circumstances are properly understood. District nurses covering rural Wiltshire face very different challenges from those working in more urban areas. Yet many of the staff who contacted me feel that those differences have not been properly recognised. Wiltshire is a large rural county. Patients can live miles from healthcare facilities. Community nursing teams often spend significant amounts of their days travelling between appointments , and aggregate figures for a large contract area tell part of the story, but they can also obscure local pressures and local problems.
A successful service model is one that understands those differences and responds to them, and I'm afraid I have concluded that HCG does not understand those differences. When responsibility for Community Health Services was awarded to HCG in October 2020, four, patients were promised more joined up care, easier access to services and simpler overall experiences. A I absolutely will.
16:02
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I think she's going to get on to the point in the first in a second, but I want to say thank you to the members of staff that have taken the time to come here and put themselves forward. Does she agree with me that HMRC s promise of improving services through single access point has been a historic failure, and if they do not manage to get back on track, we should be looking at re-evaluating their contracts.
16:02
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you and I thank the member for his intervention. He's absolutely right. There is serious concern about what was promised and what has been delivered. And I think that central part of that vision and that delivery was this single point of access. And as the member has highlighted, the on paper, that's an attractive idea. But the reality seems to be completely different. And constituents repeatedly tell me about the long waits for phones, missed call backs, referrals that are difficult to track, and urgent cases not reaching the right team quickly enough.
16:03
16:03
16:03
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Would she agree with me that one of the most disruptive changes for frontline staff and patients has been the loss of dedicated admin support in favor of the so-called single point of access or Spa. That simply does not work. If she is serious about improving services, restoring adequate admin support for clinical teams must surely be part of the solution. Time spent on admin by clinical staff is time spent away from patients.
Thank you.
Thank you.
16:04
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I absolutely agree with my honourable friend and I was I will come on to that point. Exactly. But the biggest concern for staff is the patient safety. And they have highlighted that very clearly to all of us, I believe. And one chip in a resident told me that they waited an hour to get through to the single point of access, only to be told to expect a call back that didn't arrive until the following day. A constituent from Calne described spending a week making calls, leaving messages, sending emails simply to secure a podiatry appointment. In the end, I understand that he was so desperate he just went into the offices.
Not everyone can do that and I appreciate that. The ICB, the commissioners, have the single point of access under surveillance. But as I will return to later, being under surveillance is just not enough for our our residents. Many of the concerns raised with me have come not only from patients but also from staff. And I have heard concerns about growing caseloads, vacancies, the loss of experienced staff and as my honourable friend mentioned, the reduction of administrative support. One nurse reported what had previously been ten visits per day had increased to approximately 15. Another described seeing 14 patients during a shift that overrun by 90 minutes.
Staff speak of chronic understaffing, excessive workloads and concerns about the impact that these pressures are having, both on patients and on the workforce. I absolutely will.
Not everyone can do that and I appreciate that. The ICB, the commissioners, have the single point of access under surveillance. But as I will return to later, being under surveillance is just not enough for our our residents. Many of the concerns raised with me have come not only from patients but also from staff. And I have heard concerns about growing caseloads, vacancies, the loss of experienced staff and as my honourable friend mentioned, the reduction of administrative support. One nurse reported what had previously been ten visits per day had increased to approximately 15. Another described seeing 14 patients during a shift that overrun by 90 minutes.
Staff speak of chronic understaffing, excessive workloads and concerns about the impact that these pressures are having, both on patients and on the workforce. I absolutely will.
16:05
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Can I commend the honourable for bringing this forward? And the Sea Org group it refers to took over the substantial NHS contract to run the community health service in the south west of England. I share the honourable lady's concerns about the long delays forced by faced by patients, because similar issues have come up in my constituency as well across Northern Ireland, where they struggle to provide services due to worker shortages and lack of funding. Does the honourable lady agree that the ability of private care providers to deliver NHS contracted services effectively and reliably has to, and must be more thoroughly assessed before the contracts are handed out?
16:06
16:06
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank my hon. The honourable member for his intervention and he's quite right. We are seeing promises not being delivered now, whether that is because they are a private service or because of the management of the system is not for me to say, and that's something I'm hoping that the minister will be able to look into. And I have to say, I personally spend a lot of time in the NHS, not out of choice, but as a patient and also as a carer for my husband. And the frontline staff are fabulous. They go above and beyond to support the patient, regardless of whether that patient happens to be their MP or not.
But as their MP, I do find that the staff tend to approach me in confidence to say that they fear using the formal channels for feedback. Patients and staff working across the community based healthcare system are raising the same issues with me. Delays , difficulty navigating the referral pathway and concerns about whether requests always reach the right clinical team. And I think ministers have a responsibility to take those concerns as seriously as the members sitting next to me. Patient safety is my chief concern. Since our CHCG took over and one community nurse described families contacting nursing teams because a loved one approached them, approaching the end of life was experiencing severe pain .
Despite being told that help would be available. The nurse reported incidences where no referral appeared to have reached the community nursing team at all. Visits were eventually arranged, but the patient spent several hours without adequate pain relief, and a former community nurse separately described obtaining additional medication for palliative patients and not being able to get it. Nobody approaching the end of their life should spend hours in avoidable pain because the system is inadequate. I have also heard concerns about delayed wound care, time, critical medication and urgent catheter issues. One district nurse described attending a patient whose leg wounds had leaked through his dressings.
His daughter had contacted the service twice over the weekend without receiving assistance. By the time the nurse arrived, the patient had resorted to wrapping plastic bags around his legs, and I understand that the same problem occurred the following weekend. The concerns I have received are not limited to community nursing. A physiotherapist working in Chippenham Hospital describes concerns about the introduction of the new referral system. According to the information, staff noticed that referrals were dropping dramatically with the new system, but when those delayed referrals were eventually identified and processed, clinicians faced a sudden influx of cases, including urgent post-operative patients.
We're talking about knee replacements that are not being seen in a timely manner, in which case they will end up being redone. This is a cost for nothing. Clinicians describe patients waiting around eight weeks after these knee replacement surgeries, despite the treatment being expected much sooner. And the concerns raised are not simply about waiting times, but about the possibility of avoidable deterioration and long term impacts to recovery. These are not simply administrative inconveniences, they are potential patient safety. I also want to touch briefly on the wheelchair services. I understand wheelchair a wheelchair currently has one wheelchair technician where it had originally been intended to have four, and one constituent from Calne told me she was supplied with an unsuitable wheelchair without being properly measured.
She raised the concerns about the difficulty and the safety, and the fact that she could not get onto the bus. But despite repeated attempts over months to resolve the matter, she's getting nowhere. Other constituent reported from Chippenham that the replacement battery didn't arrive. The updated seating didn't arrive, which meant that they were unable to get to college. When repair and maintenance services are not functioning as they should, the consequences for the patient are immediate and profound. One observation that particularly troubled me was a comment made to me by some patients , no longer bothering to complain, because they have become accustomed to the delays and the difficulty, and sometimes the absence of formal complaints reflects a loss of confidence rather than anything else.
And this is particularly concerning when we think about older patients, disabled patients and those who are already struggling to navigate a complex health system. People who find it the hardest to access the services are often the same people least likely to make their voices heard. That's why scrutiny and transparency matters. When constituents raise concerns about the services, they expect clear, simple answers. Who is responsible? We have an I c, b, c contract oversight group reporting to the ICB C Collaborative Oversight Forum. We have the BSW Community Delivery Group overseeing transformation across the system. We have joint contract oversight groups, quality boards and safeguarding groups all scrutinising performance.
But many of the same organisations sit across multiple levels of this oversight. The Integrated Care Board, the local authority commissions and the HCR itself are involved throughout this governance structure. The organisations commissioning the contract, managing the contract are also scrutinising the contract. All seem to be on the same table. Frankly, even as elected representatives, I have to say to a certain extent, we struggle to work out who is accountable when everyone involved in the oversight, it can be remarkably difficult to identify who is responsible for acting when the problems emerge, there is a risk that organisations end up marking their own homework and with concerns passing between governance groups, rather than being subjected to genuinely independent channels.
Challenge patients deserve a system where responsibility is visible, understandable and transparent from the outset, where persistent concerns are being raised about the access to care, referral pathways and patient safety, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the Care Quality Commission should take a closer look. An independent scrutiny should not be something we worry about. It should be something we welcome because it will lead to improvements. And finally, Madam Chair, I would be grateful if the minister could address two specific points. Firstly, will she ask BS s, ICB and the HCG to publish some comparable pre and post transformation performance data, including call waiting times, callback performance, referral processing times, complaints and patient outcome broken down where possible to a local level so that both the patients and us as parliamentarians can actually see whether those promised improvements have actually been delivered a year and a half into the contract, despite the fact they also had six months before the contract started in order to to to provide the transition.
And secondly, will she engage with the Care Quality Commission about a case for further independent scrutiny of HCR s Wiltshire services , and clarify what further regulatory action may be available if these persistent concerns about access, referrals and patient safety continue, as was referenced by my honourable colleague. Patients don't really care how many committees or meetings are called. What they really want is the answers, and their concern is whether they are getting the care they need when they need it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
But as their MP, I do find that the staff tend to approach me in confidence to say that they fear using the formal channels for feedback. Patients and staff working across the community based healthcare system are raising the same issues with me. Delays , difficulty navigating the referral pathway and concerns about whether requests always reach the right clinical team. And I think ministers have a responsibility to take those concerns as seriously as the members sitting next to me. Patient safety is my chief concern. Since our CHCG took over and one community nurse described families contacting nursing teams because a loved one approached them, approaching the end of life was experiencing severe pain .
Despite being told that help would be available. The nurse reported incidences where no referral appeared to have reached the community nursing team at all. Visits were eventually arranged, but the patient spent several hours without adequate pain relief, and a former community nurse separately described obtaining additional medication for palliative patients and not being able to get it. Nobody approaching the end of their life should spend hours in avoidable pain because the system is inadequate. I have also heard concerns about delayed wound care, time, critical medication and urgent catheter issues. One district nurse described attending a patient whose leg wounds had leaked through his dressings.
His daughter had contacted the service twice over the weekend without receiving assistance. By the time the nurse arrived, the patient had resorted to wrapping plastic bags around his legs, and I understand that the same problem occurred the following weekend. The concerns I have received are not limited to community nursing. A physiotherapist working in Chippenham Hospital describes concerns about the introduction of the new referral system. According to the information, staff noticed that referrals were dropping dramatically with the new system, but when those delayed referrals were eventually identified and processed, clinicians faced a sudden influx of cases, including urgent post-operative patients.
We're talking about knee replacements that are not being seen in a timely manner, in which case they will end up being redone. This is a cost for nothing. Clinicians describe patients waiting around eight weeks after these knee replacement surgeries, despite the treatment being expected much sooner. And the concerns raised are not simply about waiting times, but about the possibility of avoidable deterioration and long term impacts to recovery. These are not simply administrative inconveniences, they are potential patient safety. I also want to touch briefly on the wheelchair services. I understand wheelchair a wheelchair currently has one wheelchair technician where it had originally been intended to have four, and one constituent from Calne told me she was supplied with an unsuitable wheelchair without being properly measured.
She raised the concerns about the difficulty and the safety, and the fact that she could not get onto the bus. But despite repeated attempts over months to resolve the matter, she's getting nowhere. Other constituent reported from Chippenham that the replacement battery didn't arrive. The updated seating didn't arrive, which meant that they were unable to get to college. When repair and maintenance services are not functioning as they should, the consequences for the patient are immediate and profound. One observation that particularly troubled me was a comment made to me by some patients , no longer bothering to complain, because they have become accustomed to the delays and the difficulty, and sometimes the absence of formal complaints reflects a loss of confidence rather than anything else.
And this is particularly concerning when we think about older patients, disabled patients and those who are already struggling to navigate a complex health system. People who find it the hardest to access the services are often the same people least likely to make their voices heard. That's why scrutiny and transparency matters. When constituents raise concerns about the services, they expect clear, simple answers. Who is responsible? We have an I c, b, c contract oversight group reporting to the ICB C Collaborative Oversight Forum. We have the BSW Community Delivery Group overseeing transformation across the system. We have joint contract oversight groups, quality boards and safeguarding groups all scrutinising performance.
But many of the same organisations sit across multiple levels of this oversight. The Integrated Care Board, the local authority commissions and the HCR itself are involved throughout this governance structure. The organisations commissioning the contract, managing the contract are also scrutinising the contract. All seem to be on the same table. Frankly, even as elected representatives, I have to say to a certain extent, we struggle to work out who is accountable when everyone involved in the oversight, it can be remarkably difficult to identify who is responsible for acting when the problems emerge, there is a risk that organisations end up marking their own homework and with concerns passing between governance groups, rather than being subjected to genuinely independent channels.
Challenge patients deserve a system where responsibility is visible, understandable and transparent from the outset, where persistent concerns are being raised about the access to care, referral pathways and patient safety, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the Care Quality Commission should take a closer look. An independent scrutiny should not be something we worry about. It should be something we welcome because it will lead to improvements. And finally, Madam Chair, I would be grateful if the minister could address two specific points. Firstly, will she ask BS s, ICB and the HCG to publish some comparable pre and post transformation performance data, including call waiting times, callback performance, referral processing times, complaints and patient outcome broken down where possible to a local level so that both the patients and us as parliamentarians can actually see whether those promised improvements have actually been delivered a year and a half into the contract, despite the fact they also had six months before the contract started in order to to to provide the transition.
And secondly, will she engage with the Care Quality Commission about a case for further independent scrutiny of HCR s Wiltshire services , and clarify what further regulatory action may be available if these persistent concerns about access, referrals and patient safety continue, as was referenced by my honourable colleague. Patients don't really care how many committees or meetings are called. What they really want is the answers, and their concern is whether they are getting the care they need when they need it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:14
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you. Yes, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chambers. Can I thank the honourable lady for Chippenham bringing forward this debate? And I really well informed and well considered set of proposals about a contract about which I'm aware I will try and address most of her points. I has been on my radar. Obviously, this was on my radar before the general election and is one that was signed just after the election as a partly as a local MP, and I'm conscious, as I think she said, there are staff here today , that this remains a concern of staff and some of the trade unions, not least kept on my radar by my hon.
Friend the member for Swindon North, so absolutely aware of some of the genesis of, of, of the sort of process of this contract and coming forward. We won't rehearse that where we are. We are where we are now. But I do want to make sure that people are aware of that. And I mean, I think, as she said, what we need to make sure now really is what was promised is delivered. And I commit that that's what we all want to see for the people of her community. And across the wider ICB so to be clear on our general expectation around community services, they are really vital and particularly vital to to the left shift.
And this particularly is true, I think, in, in rural areas, actually a wide range of services delivered under this umbrella, from district nurses to services provided by allied health professionals such as physiotherapy or OT , services for adults and children where they live in local communities, and also really good local jobs. And these are services are vital to support in our ambitions for neighbourhood health, and that is why we set out clear ambitions for them in our medium term planning framework. And for the first time, we have set a target for systems to reduce long waits for community health services.
By 2829, at least 80% of activity delivered by community health services should take place within 18 weeks, bringing community health services in line with targets for elective care. We've also published guidance outlining the core components of community health services for children, young people and adults that ICB should provide, and this is hugely important for many of the issues that she has raised here today. We know there is variation between services available across the country, and we know that people are waiting too long to access community health services, and that's why this government is taking action to reduce unwarranted variation, cut waits and improve access to high quality community services.
That's where we want to get to. Now, in terms of the performance of H, C, R, G group, as we know, they have taken on the contract to bring together more than 130 community health and care services across the ICB area. It is a large scale, what is called a transformation programme and since they have been awarded the contract, the ICB obviously has to work very closely with them, and I have met the ICB in advance of this debate to hear from them as well. They are responsible for managing the contract, as I understand it, they do.
And as she has alluded to these money arrangements, they do have arrangements in place to oversee the quality, the safety, the performance across all those commissioned services and performance is regularly monitored. I do recognise the concerns about delays, callbacks and referrals across the teams and getting people across the single point of access. I do say that single points of access are things that have been worked on for many years under many different contracts, because generally they should do what they say on the tin and actually help people go forward. So they do need to make it work.
And I understand they are increasing that oversight as a result of some of the issues that have been raised, bringing together the provider and systems to support improvement. And that is really important to bring together patients, carers, local community staff and stakeholders as they develop that work. And I, the ICB assures me they remain committed to engaging openly with those communities, with MPs, with Healthwatch and other stakeholders throughout delivery and community, throughout the delivery and the development of those community services.
I'm happy to.
Friend the member for Swindon North, so absolutely aware of some of the genesis of, of, of the sort of process of this contract and coming forward. We won't rehearse that where we are. We are where we are now. But I do want to make sure that people are aware of that. And I mean, I think, as she said, what we need to make sure now really is what was promised is delivered. And I commit that that's what we all want to see for the people of her community. And across the wider ICB so to be clear on our general expectation around community services, they are really vital and particularly vital to to the left shift.
And this particularly is true, I think, in, in rural areas, actually a wide range of services delivered under this umbrella, from district nurses to services provided by allied health professionals such as physiotherapy or OT , services for adults and children where they live in local communities, and also really good local jobs. And these are services are vital to support in our ambitions for neighbourhood health, and that is why we set out clear ambitions for them in our medium term planning framework. And for the first time, we have set a target for systems to reduce long waits for community health services.
By 2829, at least 80% of activity delivered by community health services should take place within 18 weeks, bringing community health services in line with targets for elective care. We've also published guidance outlining the core components of community health services for children, young people and adults that ICB should provide, and this is hugely important for many of the issues that she has raised here today. We know there is variation between services available across the country, and we know that people are waiting too long to access community health services, and that's why this government is taking action to reduce unwarranted variation, cut waits and improve access to high quality community services.
That's where we want to get to. Now, in terms of the performance of H, C, R, G group, as we know, they have taken on the contract to bring together more than 130 community health and care services across the ICB area. It is a large scale, what is called a transformation programme and since they have been awarded the contract, the ICB obviously has to work very closely with them, and I have met the ICB in advance of this debate to hear from them as well. They are responsible for managing the contract, as I understand it, they do.
And as she has alluded to these money arrangements, they do have arrangements in place to oversee the quality, the safety, the performance across all those commissioned services and performance is regularly monitored. I do recognise the concerns about delays, callbacks and referrals across the teams and getting people across the single point of access. I do say that single points of access are things that have been worked on for many years under many different contracts, because generally they should do what they say on the tin and actually help people go forward. So they do need to make it work.
And I understand they are increasing that oversight as a result of some of the issues that have been raised, bringing together the provider and systems to support improvement. And that is really important to bring together patients, carers, local community staff and stakeholders as they develop that work. And I, the ICB assures me they remain committed to engaging openly with those communities, with MPs, with Healthwatch and other stakeholders throughout delivery and community, throughout the delivery and the development of those community services.
I'm happy to.
16:19
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Will the Minister agree with me, though, that the level of complexity of the oversight system and the fact that the same people are on every single one of those groups, does not help either the staff or the patients feel that there is genuine, independent scrutiny of what is actually happening. We are getting the same answers from the same people.
16:19
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I will come on. I will come on to some of that overall, because it's also tied up with the health bill and things that we are proposing to do for the future. And she touched on some of my favorite subjects, which is accountability of local health systems in the time I have available. Miss loo, can I just talk about the hospital at home services though, because they are also really important supporting, you know, supporting people, as it says on the tin to keep people out of hospital, but they don't need to be and support early discharge.
They do remain a really important part of the community services offer across Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire, ICB there have been changes to the service provision, I am assured by the ICB and I'm sure she will correct me if that is wrong, that there are no plans to reduce capacity or withdraw the hospital at home service. The ICB is currently undertaking a review of the services following concerns raised, and will continue to monitor the impact of these changes to ensure safe and effective care is maintained. Again, this is absolutely in the direction of travel that we want to see these services change and improve.
We are, we are. I'm going to finish. I'm going to finish the comments, if I may, in the debate.
They do remain a really important part of the community services offer across Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire, ICB there have been changes to the service provision, I am assured by the ICB and I'm sure she will correct me if that is wrong, that there are no plans to reduce capacity or withdraw the hospital at home service. The ICB is currently undertaking a review of the services following concerns raised, and will continue to monitor the impact of these changes to ensure safe and effective care is maintained. Again, this is absolutely in the direction of travel that we want to see these services change and improve.
We are, we are. I'm going to finish. I'm going to finish the comments, if I may, in the debate.
16:20
16:20
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
It is also important. Industrial relations. You know, we cannot run a health and care service without good staff, well supported and maintaining good industrial relations at a local level. That is a matter primarily for the group, its employers and recognised trade unions. And the ICB needs to continue to monitor that and, you know, go through those established processes for, for for doing that. They do need to keep working with them. And we certainly support that at a national level on the on the wider issues about supporting ICB performance. I mean, I do sympathise and I've spoken many times in opposition and in government about the frustrations of local members of Parliament to understand what was a very fragmented system left under the Lansley reforms.
And I do appreciate what she is saying from her position in Chippenham may be different to other positions. It is a large geographic area, and that is one of the issues that we need to get right and are working very closely on. In terms of the health bill, where we are devolving responsibility and accountability for the commissioning and then the providing of services at a local level, that is the right thing to do. And but we also need to get right in that the the link to neighborhoods and place through local authorities and particularly strengthening health and wellbeing boards.
That is the direction of travel in the bill and what we are currently trying, trying to, to, to make happen. Icbs are held to account nationally for delivering for patients, though the oversight framework provides a transparent approach for assessing performance and from 2627 every ICB. This is something else that we have changed since coming into power. Every ICB will be placed in a delivery segment of. Based on national performance measures, helping to identify greater support, scrutiny or intervention is needed at that national level. That will be complemented by an annual assessment of how effectively each ICB is discharging its statutory functions.
Where performance is falling short, oversight can be increased and support can be targeted to the areas of challenge and, where necessary, formal intervention powers are available, bringing Icbs into line with other with the providers. So at the same time, we are also. And this is partly through the health Bill strengthening Icbs commissioning capability. We have the Strategic Commissioning framework, setting out what effective strategic commissioning looks like, and the Commissioning Develop programme provides targeted support to strengthen those capabilities in local systems. We recognise that there is variability across the country. So to be clear, Icbs are responsible for assuring the quality, effectiveness and value of the services they commission.
While NHS England oversees the performance of Icbs through the oversight framework, including consideration of how effectively they discharge those commissioning responsibilities. And finally, we have heard issues raised around palliative and end of life care patients approaching the end of life, and those and those important to them. They are closest friends and family absolutely should receive compassionate, dignified and personalised care in an appropriate environment. And that is why the government is committed to improving access to high quality palliative care and end of life care, and shifting more care from hospitals into the community and into home, where appropriate, NHS England requires icbs to commission appropriate palliative care and end of life care to meet the needs of their local populations and to support the Icbs in this duty.
NHS England has published statutory guidance and service specifications. In addition to this, we are developing a modern service framework for palliative care and end of life care. This will be a clinically led, evidence based framework to support sustained improvement in outcomes for patients and carers, including identifying, measuring and reducing health inequalities and reducing unwarranted variation in access, experience and outcomes. So in conclusion, Miss Liu, we do continue to work hard to strengthen community health services and shift care closer to home. As she said, what was promised to her population and the wider ICB area must be delivered.
All too often, community health services do not get the attention that they deserve and the recognition actually that staff on the ground deserve to, and I think this debate has raised some important questions about how we are holding organisations to account that are commissioning and delivering services. She asked two specific points about comparable data. As I think I've outlined, I am committed to and. And if anybody hasn't read the transformation packs and opportunity packs, I go to all MPs last year about your local systems. I recommend that I continue to get information on your local systems to all MPs.
I think she asks and I think she probably knows this. She probably can't compare like for like, but she should have that information. We are getting that on stream. I'm happy to write to her with any details of what is available or what might be made more available. She also asked questions about the CQC, so she knows that's an independent regulator, but there's a specific question there. I will make sure that we write to her about that too, and I thank her and other members who have contributed to this debate.
And I do appreciate what she is saying from her position in Chippenham may be different to other positions. It is a large geographic area, and that is one of the issues that we need to get right and are working very closely on. In terms of the health bill, where we are devolving responsibility and accountability for the commissioning and then the providing of services at a local level, that is the right thing to do. And but we also need to get right in that the the link to neighborhoods and place through local authorities and particularly strengthening health and wellbeing boards.
That is the direction of travel in the bill and what we are currently trying, trying to, to, to make happen. Icbs are held to account nationally for delivering for patients, though the oversight framework provides a transparent approach for assessing performance and from 2627 every ICB. This is something else that we have changed since coming into power. Every ICB will be placed in a delivery segment of. Based on national performance measures, helping to identify greater support, scrutiny or intervention is needed at that national level. That will be complemented by an annual assessment of how effectively each ICB is discharging its statutory functions.
Where performance is falling short, oversight can be increased and support can be targeted to the areas of challenge and, where necessary, formal intervention powers are available, bringing Icbs into line with other with the providers. So at the same time, we are also. And this is partly through the health Bill strengthening Icbs commissioning capability. We have the Strategic Commissioning framework, setting out what effective strategic commissioning looks like, and the Commissioning Develop programme provides targeted support to strengthen those capabilities in local systems. We recognise that there is variability across the country. So to be clear, Icbs are responsible for assuring the quality, effectiveness and value of the services they commission.
While NHS England oversees the performance of Icbs through the oversight framework, including consideration of how effectively they discharge those commissioning responsibilities. And finally, we have heard issues raised around palliative and end of life care patients approaching the end of life, and those and those important to them. They are closest friends and family absolutely should receive compassionate, dignified and personalised care in an appropriate environment. And that is why the government is committed to improving access to high quality palliative care and end of life care, and shifting more care from hospitals into the community and into home, where appropriate, NHS England requires icbs to commission appropriate palliative care and end of life care to meet the needs of their local populations and to support the Icbs in this duty.
NHS England has published statutory guidance and service specifications. In addition to this, we are developing a modern service framework for palliative care and end of life care. This will be a clinically led, evidence based framework to support sustained improvement in outcomes for patients and carers, including identifying, measuring and reducing health inequalities and reducing unwarranted variation in access, experience and outcomes. So in conclusion, Miss Liu, we do continue to work hard to strengthen community health services and shift care closer to home. As she said, what was promised to her population and the wider ICB area must be delivered.
All too often, community health services do not get the attention that they deserve and the recognition actually that staff on the ground deserve to, and I think this debate has raised some important questions about how we are holding organisations to account that are commissioning and delivering services. She asked two specific points about comparable data. As I think I've outlined, I am committed to and. And if anybody hasn't read the transformation packs and opportunity packs, I go to all MPs last year about your local systems. I recommend that I continue to get information on your local systems to all MPs.
I think she asks and I think she probably knows this. She probably can't compare like for like, but she should have that information. We are getting that on stream. I'm happy to write to her with any details of what is available or what might be made more available. She also asked questions about the CQC, so she knows that's an independent regulator, but there's a specific question there. I will make sure that we write to her about that too, and I thank her and other members who have contributed to this debate.
16:25
16:31
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I beg to move that. This House has considered the national scheme of delegation of planning functions. And it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. From Saturday, councillors across England will lose powers powers to bring planning applications before elected committees for communities like mine in Aldridge-brownhills that are already facing huge speculative development. This is a serious loss of accountability. My residents have faced an onslaught of applications on greenbelt sites, including York's Bridge for 330 houses, Queslett Road East for 850, Barnes Lane for 77, Longwood Lane for 78 and Boston Lane for 550 houses.
This is just some of them. These applications have brought the debate about the future of our countryside very close to people's doors. These green spaces help give our communities their identity. Residents want to know what development will mean for their already busy roads, school places and access to a GP. They are right to expect those questions to be properly considered before ministers introduce sweeping changes. Yet here we are, just days, Miss Lowell, before the new rules take effect. Still looking for answers of the outstanding applications for 2350 homes across my constituency. It would seem that 80% will be determined on the new rules and behind closed doors, residents and councillors will not be able to easily ask questions of the developers or raise issues in open committee.
Of course, we agree on the need for homes that local people can afford. I want brownfield sites brought back into use with supporting infrastructure and as I've said time and time again in this place, and I'll probably still be saying this once agricultural land is built on, it's gone and it's gone forever. I want to see planning consent consents built, not banked. So that brings me to the current consultation on the Walsall Borough Local Plan.
Of course I will.
This is just some of them. These applications have brought the debate about the future of our countryside very close to people's doors. These green spaces help give our communities their identity. Residents want to know what development will mean for their already busy roads, school places and access to a GP. They are right to expect those questions to be properly considered before ministers introduce sweeping changes. Yet here we are, just days, Miss Lowell, before the new rules take effect. Still looking for answers of the outstanding applications for 2350 homes across my constituency. It would seem that 80% will be determined on the new rules and behind closed doors, residents and councillors will not be able to easily ask questions of the developers or raise issues in open committee.
Of course, we agree on the need for homes that local people can afford. I want brownfield sites brought back into use with supporting infrastructure and as I've said time and time again in this place, and I'll probably still be saying this once agricultural land is built on, it's gone and it's gone forever. I want to see planning consent consents built, not banked. So that brings me to the current consultation on the Walsall Borough Local Plan.
Of course I will.
16:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Can I commend the hon. Lady, I spoke to her beforehand and always looking to be helpful, Madam Chair. And what we do back home in Northern Ireland under section 31 of our own Planning Act, each of our 11 district councils is legally mandated to operate its own bespoke scheme of delegation, which gives local authorities excellent democratic autonomy over local developments. It has at times led to the exact regional inconsistency and application process processing times that this new English model explicitly seeks to correct. So does the honourable lady agree that the information within the Northern Ireland process should be shared to achieve best practice in planning, and hopefully address some of the very issues that the media is highlighting in this debate today.
16:33
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you. I'm always grateful to my hon. Friend because he always brings useful contributions into Westminster Hall and contributions that we can reflect on and often share on those those different experiences. And I think the fundamental thing here to me is about making sure that our our communities feel that their councillors have a voice rather than what we're faced with is a democratic deficit. So thank you for that. So our local plan consultation closes on Monday. And over the last six weeks, I've been encouraging residents to respond, holding public meetings, helping with objections, making it clear to them that their views, whatever their views, are, matter, including when the plan goes before an independent inspector.
What. But what message are these new regulations sending residents? Take the time to go through the documents, attend the meetings and help shape their area's future. While the government restricts their councillors ability to secure full and public scrutiny when an application arrives. This is not democracy in action. It's not scrutiny, nor is it accountability. So what is the point of asking communities to invest their time in a local Plan? If contentious decisions about its application are then to be taken behind closed doors? Yes, of course I will.
What. But what message are these new regulations sending residents? Take the time to go through the documents, attend the meetings and help shape their area's future. While the government restricts their councillors ability to secure full and public scrutiny when an application arrives. This is not democracy in action. It's not scrutiny, nor is it accountability. So what is the point of asking communities to invest their time in a local Plan? If contentious decisions about its application are then to be taken behind closed doors? Yes, of course I will.
16:34
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. I suspect I'm doing neither myself nor her any favours by saying I absolutely agree with what she's saying, and I think it's our duty as MPs to robustly defend local democracy. So I wonder whether the right hon. Lady agrees with me that when the communities we represent and their directly elected councillors oppose speculative development, the answer is not to try and silence their voices, but to try and secure genuine public consent with a higher standard of development that meets local needs and hopes for the future.
16:35
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I can assure the honourable gentleman that he's certainly not upsetting me by those comments. Far from it, because the point that he makes is exactly the one that I'm making, that local democracy and local accountability matters. And it's so important that we include the local voices, because it's the local voice that has the local knowledge and to shape the community. And if we want communities that are truly cohesive and that work together, then we need to make sure that their voices are heard, not having targets and housing imposed upon them. I'm spoilt for choice, so I'll go that way.
Then I'll go that way.
Then I'll go that way.
16:36
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for letting me intervene on her and for the really important speech that she is making. Rosie and my constituency a development for 8500 homes, which was due to go to the local planning committee, was suddenly taken away from them. Called in by the neighbouring MP for Sittingbourne and the decision now is sitting with the Secretary of State totally taking that important decision, which will make a huge impact on the area out of local hands. This is clearly denying local democracy. When we have locally elected councillors who know the kind of impact this development will have on my constituency.
So does she agree with me? It is completely wrong to take those powers to influence local planning decisions away from local councillors, and absurd that a government which talks about increasing devolution is the one that is doing this, taking those powers away from local councillors.
So does she agree with me? It is completely wrong to take those powers to influence local planning decisions away from local councillors, and absurd that a government which talks about increasing devolution is the one that is doing this, taking those powers away from local councillors.
16:37
16:37
16:37
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Friend for giving away, and can I congratulate her on securing this debate? She mentioned accountability and democracy, and as she will know, the government are currently putting through the representation of the People Act, which is trying to encourage, quite rightly, increased participation and accountability within our electoral system. Does she share a concern like I have, which is that the role of councillors are undermined by this measure and that people locally actually will lose confidence in the democratic checks and balances of local government, and that therefore, we may see turnouts and participation actually go down.
16:37
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My hon. Friend is really right on this point for a long time. It's concerned me that turnout at elections, particularly local elections, has been falling. And I personally do not believe that the simple answer is just to lower the voting age. What we should be doing, cross-party is actually seeking to engage with people, with communities. And. And actually what we're seeing here is a government that imposes top down targets, says it's all about devolution, goes through the mayors. But when it actually comes to accountability and scrutiny, I can't scrutinise the mayor of the West Midlands.
He doesn't even reply to my to my letters yet. He's getting more powers. And on the local council, the powers come to the through these measures down to local councils and once again, local councillors. They're losing their voice. Our communities are losing their voices. So how can we say we want to engage with communities? How do we really want to shape the future of our of our country and our communities? If we are taking away transparency and accountability, the things which to me are the very foundations of good, strong democracy. Now, delegation is a familiar concept.
In fact, the government's own white paper said officers made 96% of planning decisions in the second quarter of 2024, but it cannot become how every application is determined. Where is the evidence about delays as a result of planning committee call ins? How much arises from waiting for the committee and how much from staffing shortages? Outstanding technical advice or the complexity of the process. Under the new rules, ordinary applications for up to nine houses on sites smaller than half a hectare must be decided by officers. Larger applications are not guaranteed a hearing either. Referral requires the nominated officer and the chair of the planning committee to agree, and a test of significance to be met.
If they disagree, the decision stays with officers, even reserved matters for a purely residential scheme of several hundred homes can be subject to mandatory delegation, so why exclude councillors from details that materially change the make up of their own community? A ward councillor will know exactly why a proposal
He doesn't even reply to my to my letters yet. He's getting more powers. And on the local council, the powers come to the through these measures down to local councils and once again, local councillors. They're losing their voice. Our communities are losing their voices. So how can we say we want to engage with communities? How do we really want to shape the future of our of our country and our communities? If we are taking away transparency and accountability, the things which to me are the very foundations of good, strong democracy. Now, delegation is a familiar concept.
In fact, the government's own white paper said officers made 96% of planning decisions in the second quarter of 2024, but it cannot become how every application is determined. Where is the evidence about delays as a result of planning committee call ins? How much arises from waiting for the committee and how much from staffing shortages? Outstanding technical advice or the complexity of the process. Under the new rules, ordinary applications for up to nine houses on sites smaller than half a hectare must be decided by officers. Larger applications are not guaranteed a hearing either. Referral requires the nominated officer and the chair of the planning committee to agree, and a test of significance to be met.
If they disagree, the decision stays with officers, even reserved matters for a purely residential scheme of several hundred homes can be subject to mandatory delegation, so why exclude councillors from details that materially change the make up of their own community? A ward councillor will know exactly why a proposal
16:40
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Heard at committee, so it would be helpful if the minister could outline how they will ensure the significance test is applied consistently. What can a councillor do when a well-founded referral request is rejected? How can it be the case that an application concerning a protected tree can still be for committee consideration, while an application for nine houses can be excluded? What principle explains that distinction? Why should councils be able to future to consider the future of a single tree? I'm not saying trees aren't important, but . But not the circumstances of a housing development. And then we come to the issue of transparency.
Will reasons for refusing to refer an application to committee be published before the application is decided. Allowing time to raise an error. Reporting afterwards will give no comfort to concerned residents if permission has already been granted. As the Minister will undoubtedly be aware and I do appreciate it's not entirely her her brief today, but some councils are seeking to preserve democratic oversight through informal councillor panels advising on planning applications. So what assessment has the department made of the risk of developers alleging predetermination, where councillors express a view through those panels and subsequently participate in the gateway decision, or determine the application at committee?
Could the resulting legal challenges and delays undermine the very house building targets these regulations are intended to support? So I would be really grateful if she or her department would publish clear guidance so councils can retain meaningful elected involvement without creating further uncertainty. There is also the question of neighbourhood plans. One council leader tells me their council has called for applications conflicting with an adopted neighbourhood plan policy to be eligible for committee consideration. Communities spend years and years, thousands of pounds preparing these plans before residents endorse them in a referendum. They deserve a route to elected scrutiny when an application conflicts with those policies.
So will the Minister provide that safeguard, including for applications otherwise subject to mandatory delegation? There's a similar concern about houses of multiple occupation. All too often used to house those decanted from asylum hotels, councils introduced article four directions because they have identified a need for greater control over conversions, in particular neighbourhoods. Yet applications brought into the planning system by those directions can fall within schedule one, preventing elected members from determining them. So will the Minister clarify which HMO applications exactly must be delegated, and explain why an article four direction provides no exception, where an application raises significant concerns about the concentration of HMOs, about parking , or the loss of family housing.
Will they allow councillors to secure a committee hearing and of course, planning officers? Let's not forget. Forget those because the planning officers also deserve protection. They undertake difficult professional work, often with very limited resources, making or moving. Moving, contentious decisions away from committees has a real risk of leaving them personally exposed. And councillors are rightly asking what safeguards will protect officers from undue influence or pressure from developers, from applicants and other interested parties? Will there be requirements to record substantive discussions, declare conflicts of interest and obtain a second opinion in contentious cases? What independent route will officers have to report improper pressure?
Officers must act impartially. So how will the minister prevent them becoming the lightning rod for political criticism when elected members have lost their decision making role? The Royal Town Planning Institute has warned about the risk of increased abuse and public pressure. So what support will be funded to protect staff and to help councils retain those important experienced planners? Transparency protects officers and residents alike. People should be able to follow the evidence and understand who decided and why, and why accessibility matters to. Developers often have a planning consultant and legal team, whereas residents concerned about an application only have the option to open the planning portal for the very first time.
They should not need professional help to find out whether an application will reach committee. How to ask for scrutiny or whether their concerns have been considered. So will ministers engage in a publicity campaign to update people on those changes, and ensure that each authority has an easily understandable explanation of the new process on their website, including how residents can put their case where there is no committee meeting. The Planning Inspectorate also has an important role. An inspector will examine whether the proposed Local plan in my constituency meets legal requirements and is sound. Separately, inspectors determine many planning appeals.
But how will local evidence about infrastructure and cumulative greenbelt loss be considered through these processes? On another point of fairness, or rather the lack of it, applicants can appeal refusals, but residents objecting have no equivalent appeal on planning merits. So given that imbalance, why weaken scrutiny before the decision? What affordable option will residents realistically have if an application is wrongly kept away from the committee? And a separate part of this new scheme requires councils to consult the Secretary of State before refusing applications for 150 or more homes? How will that operate transparently? How can residents make representations?
Ministers are creating an additional opportunity for Whitehall interference and involvement while restricting elected local councillors. And this miss Lilwall undoubtedly creates a democratic deficit. How does that really sit with the Prime Minister's promises on devolution and community empowerment? I do not see how it does. The LGA conservative group has organised a letter with more than 1500 conservative councillors calling for this scheme of delegation to be repealed. And I would like to put on record my thanks to them for that. Let us hope the Prime Minister gives it his urgent attention when it's delivered to him at number ten tomorrow.
Miss Lowell. To conclude, we all know councils must comply with the law, but we must remember that agreeing to update their constitutions does not mean they consent to these regulations or believe that they serve their communities. A government that talks about devolution should trust local representatives and trust communities. So I hope the minister will reconsider these regulations, and at the very least, they should restore an effective route to committee for contentious applications to protect neighbourhood plans and article four and provide clear safeguards for officers. So before the scheme takes effect on Saturday, this Saturday. Will the Minister commit to those changes and an early publish assessment of its impact ahead of the statutory review in 2028?
My constituents are being asked to engage with their local plan by Monday. I want to be able to tell them that doing so will make a difference, and that their elected councillors will still have a meaningful role when decisions are taken. That is the assurance that I am seeking today. Thank you.
Will reasons for refusing to refer an application to committee be published before the application is decided. Allowing time to raise an error. Reporting afterwards will give no comfort to concerned residents if permission has already been granted. As the Minister will undoubtedly be aware and I do appreciate it's not entirely her her brief today, but some councils are seeking to preserve democratic oversight through informal councillor panels advising on planning applications. So what assessment has the department made of the risk of developers alleging predetermination, where councillors express a view through those panels and subsequently participate in the gateway decision, or determine the application at committee?
Could the resulting legal challenges and delays undermine the very house building targets these regulations are intended to support? So I would be really grateful if she or her department would publish clear guidance so councils can retain meaningful elected involvement without creating further uncertainty. There is also the question of neighbourhood plans. One council leader tells me their council has called for applications conflicting with an adopted neighbourhood plan policy to be eligible for committee consideration. Communities spend years and years, thousands of pounds preparing these plans before residents endorse them in a referendum. They deserve a route to elected scrutiny when an application conflicts with those policies.
So will the Minister provide that safeguard, including for applications otherwise subject to mandatory delegation? There's a similar concern about houses of multiple occupation. All too often used to house those decanted from asylum hotels, councils introduced article four directions because they have identified a need for greater control over conversions, in particular neighbourhoods. Yet applications brought into the planning system by those directions can fall within schedule one, preventing elected members from determining them. So will the Minister clarify which HMO applications exactly must be delegated, and explain why an article four direction provides no exception, where an application raises significant concerns about the concentration of HMOs, about parking , or the loss of family housing.
Will they allow councillors to secure a committee hearing and of course, planning officers? Let's not forget. Forget those because the planning officers also deserve protection. They undertake difficult professional work, often with very limited resources, making or moving. Moving, contentious decisions away from committees has a real risk of leaving them personally exposed. And councillors are rightly asking what safeguards will protect officers from undue influence or pressure from developers, from applicants and other interested parties? Will there be requirements to record substantive discussions, declare conflicts of interest and obtain a second opinion in contentious cases? What independent route will officers have to report improper pressure?
Officers must act impartially. So how will the minister prevent them becoming the lightning rod for political criticism when elected members have lost their decision making role? The Royal Town Planning Institute has warned about the risk of increased abuse and public pressure. So what support will be funded to protect staff and to help councils retain those important experienced planners? Transparency protects officers and residents alike. People should be able to follow the evidence and understand who decided and why, and why accessibility matters to. Developers often have a planning consultant and legal team, whereas residents concerned about an application only have the option to open the planning portal for the very first time.
They should not need professional help to find out whether an application will reach committee. How to ask for scrutiny or whether their concerns have been considered. So will ministers engage in a publicity campaign to update people on those changes, and ensure that each authority has an easily understandable explanation of the new process on their website, including how residents can put their case where there is no committee meeting. The Planning Inspectorate also has an important role. An inspector will examine whether the proposed Local plan in my constituency meets legal requirements and is sound. Separately, inspectors determine many planning appeals.
But how will local evidence about infrastructure and cumulative greenbelt loss be considered through these processes? On another point of fairness, or rather the lack of it, applicants can appeal refusals, but residents objecting have no equivalent appeal on planning merits. So given that imbalance, why weaken scrutiny before the decision? What affordable option will residents realistically have if an application is wrongly kept away from the committee? And a separate part of this new scheme requires councils to consult the Secretary of State before refusing applications for 150 or more homes? How will that operate transparently? How can residents make representations?
Ministers are creating an additional opportunity for Whitehall interference and involvement while restricting elected local councillors. And this miss Lilwall undoubtedly creates a democratic deficit. How does that really sit with the Prime Minister's promises on devolution and community empowerment? I do not see how it does. The LGA conservative group has organised a letter with more than 1500 conservative councillors calling for this scheme of delegation to be repealed. And I would like to put on record my thanks to them for that. Let us hope the Prime Minister gives it his urgent attention when it's delivered to him at number ten tomorrow.
Miss Lowell. To conclude, we all know councils must comply with the law, but we must remember that agreeing to update their constitutions does not mean they consent to these regulations or believe that they serve their communities. A government that talks about devolution should trust local representatives and trust communities. So I hope the minister will reconsider these regulations, and at the very least, they should restore an effective route to committee for contentious applications to protect neighbourhood plans and article four and provide clear safeguards for officers. So before the scheme takes effect on Saturday, this Saturday. Will the Minister commit to those changes and an early publish assessment of its impact ahead of the statutory review in 2028?
My constituents are being asked to engage with their local plan by Monday. I want to be able to tell them that doing so will make a difference, and that their elected councillors will still have a meaningful role when decisions are taken. That is the assurance that I am seeking today. Thank you.
16:47
16:47
16:47
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank the honourable member for Aldridge-brownhills for setting out her case so well? I think the starting point here has to be that government needs to be clear what problem and the causes of that problem they are trying to solve. I think the vast majority of people in this House would agree that we need more house building, ideally affordable and social, with a particular focus on that. But the causes as to why we are not hitting the government's housing targets are many, and they certainly should not be lazily reduced to blaming it on the planning system or indeed planning committees.
And that's why the solutions that the government seeks to deal with that house building shortage in terms of targets, should be based on evidence and not ideology. And I fear, Miss Lowell, that sometimes ideology is more that what what dominates removing local scrutiny in the way that has been described will not address the underlying causes of delay, including capacity constraints in planning departments and the wider construction supply chain. We need a planning system that is simpler, more effective and capable of delivering the homes that are well built, warm and cheap to heat, but also is accountable to local people and their representatives.
Looking at the two district councils that cover my Oxfordshire constituency, South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District councils, the planning committee works well and there is no evidence that it is slowing development down. 95% of planning applications are decided by officers. Already, the majority of those debated by the planning committees are also past. But having more complex and more contentious planning decisions made in public aid, transparency and scrutiny over how planning policies are being applied. On Vale of White Horse, it has an excellent record on planning appeals. Only 4.3% of appeals were allowed over the past two years, demonstrating that the decisions being made under the existing system is working well and is of high quality, and Didcot and Wantage, my constituency.
We've seen huge rates of housing growth over the past 15 years, and the key frustration for local people is that the infrastructure has not kept pace and a lot of the time the local councils, they are not the ones who are able to dictate what we need in terms of housing or new railway stations and significant in terms of health and significant infrastructure like that is not something they have direct control over. Reducing the input of local communities and removing the ability for local ward councils. Councillors to call planning decisions to a committee could reduce the opportunity for those who understand our communities best to influence the infrastructure that developers provide, alongside new homes.
And over the past few years, there have been signs that housebuilding is slowing down the build rate of homes on some of the larger developments in my part of Oxfordshire has slowed, but the government has misdiagnosed the cause for slower build rates. Planning committees are not the cause of build rates slowing. There are wider economic causes and wider system causes. Developers will only build the homes they are confident of selling more expensive mortgages , and potential buyers not feeling confident about investing in buying a home are significant factors on the Planning and Infrastructure bill, which I had the pleasure of serving on alongside the honourable member for Amber Valley, who is in this chamber.
I'm sure we all have very. We both have very fond memories of it and very, very rewarding and fulfilling experience. It was. And indeed, the conservative spokesperson also served on that committee. It was on topics such as the one we are debating today, where there were common amendments between conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Green Party honourable members. Now, how often does that happen? And were I the government, I would be very worried about uniting such three very different parties. Now, in conclusion, in conclusion, the wider philosophical problem that we fail to address as as a as a parliament, as a country is this tension between national need versus local concern.
And I think we need to start approaching that question intelligently. And yet it becomes yet another one of these debates that becomes polarised, with two tribes shouting at each other and not really engaging in dialogue. Maybe we need more of ministers coming to areas affected by significant planning issues. I'm not talking about a little cul de sac of new houses, maybe very significant infrastructure projects. If ministers were more willing to come to our constituencies, they themselves can make the case and directly in debate and challenge local opponents.
I'll give way to the honourable lady.
And that's why the solutions that the government seeks to deal with that house building shortage in terms of targets, should be based on evidence and not ideology. And I fear, Miss Lowell, that sometimes ideology is more that what what dominates removing local scrutiny in the way that has been described will not address the underlying causes of delay, including capacity constraints in planning departments and the wider construction supply chain. We need a planning system that is simpler, more effective and capable of delivering the homes that are well built, warm and cheap to heat, but also is accountable to local people and their representatives.
Looking at the two district councils that cover my Oxfordshire constituency, South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District councils, the planning committee works well and there is no evidence that it is slowing development down. 95% of planning applications are decided by officers. Already, the majority of those debated by the planning committees are also past. But having more complex and more contentious planning decisions made in public aid, transparency and scrutiny over how planning policies are being applied. On Vale of White Horse, it has an excellent record on planning appeals. Only 4.3% of appeals were allowed over the past two years, demonstrating that the decisions being made under the existing system is working well and is of high quality, and Didcot and Wantage, my constituency.
We've seen huge rates of housing growth over the past 15 years, and the key frustration for local people is that the infrastructure has not kept pace and a lot of the time the local councils, they are not the ones who are able to dictate what we need in terms of housing or new railway stations and significant in terms of health and significant infrastructure like that is not something they have direct control over. Reducing the input of local communities and removing the ability for local ward councils. Councillors to call planning decisions to a committee could reduce the opportunity for those who understand our communities best to influence the infrastructure that developers provide, alongside new homes.
And over the past few years, there have been signs that housebuilding is slowing down the build rate of homes on some of the larger developments in my part of Oxfordshire has slowed, but the government has misdiagnosed the cause for slower build rates. Planning committees are not the cause of build rates slowing. There are wider economic causes and wider system causes. Developers will only build the homes they are confident of selling more expensive mortgages , and potential buyers not feeling confident about investing in buying a home are significant factors on the Planning and Infrastructure bill, which I had the pleasure of serving on alongside the honourable member for Amber Valley, who is in this chamber.
I'm sure we all have very. We both have very fond memories of it and very, very rewarding and fulfilling experience. It was. And indeed, the conservative spokesperson also served on that committee. It was on topics such as the one we are debating today, where there were common amendments between conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Green Party honourable members. Now, how often does that happen? And were I the government, I would be very worried about uniting such three very different parties. Now, in conclusion, in conclusion, the wider philosophical problem that we fail to address as as a as a parliament, as a country is this tension between national need versus local concern.
And I think we need to start approaching that question intelligently. And yet it becomes yet another one of these debates that becomes polarised, with two tribes shouting at each other and not really engaging in dialogue. Maybe we need more of ministers coming to areas affected by significant planning issues. I'm not talking about a little cul de sac of new houses, maybe very significant infrastructure projects. If ministers were more willing to come to our constituencies, they themselves can make the case and directly in debate and challenge local opponents.
I'll give way to the honourable lady.
16:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
To the honourable gentleman. And just on that point, I would actually be delighted if the minister came to Aldridge-brownhills and they could see the impact that 20,000 homes will have across the borough, where we have no, well, a lack of infrastructure. And I'm still waiting for the funding for for Aldridge railway station.
16:52
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, and I was amazed that she didn't mention the taxation campaign in her opening speech. But she's now rectified that omission. And ministers coming and engaging directly in that way could be part of a campaign of national persuasion to really tackle the causes as to why people resent development in a given area, but too often it is left to large corporate interests to do so, which fuels mistrust. And indeed, in my constituency, the main advocate of what would be the second biggest reservoir in the country is Thames Water.
And of course, that really does not help to persuade people of the case and is one of the major reasons why there's significant local opposition as a result. I do agree with the right hon. Lady, in her speech, and indeed the honourable member for Hamble Valley, that these changes that are being made by the government do run the risk of further eroding trust in local politics and local democracy, and that is in none of our interests.
And of course, that really does not help to persuade people of the case and is one of the major reasons why there's significant local opposition as a result. I do agree with the right hon. Lady, in her speech, and indeed the honourable member for Hamble Valley, that these changes that are being made by the government do run the risk of further eroding trust in local politics and local democracy, and that is in none of our interests.
16:53
16:53
16:53
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
This debate and welcome the Minister to her position since the government reshuffle. Miss Lord, I have serious concerns about this policy and agenda, and specifically regarding the future of the ability of residents to have a meaningful say in the development of their own communities. I'm happy now that I am no longer shadow housing minister, that I can speak about these things in much more of a free way in which I possibly could at the despatch box, although I know that my hon. Friend the member for Broxbourne will be absolutely excellent in his winding up today, and like the member for honourable member for my hon.
Friend, actually for Didcot and Wantage, I have very fond memories of the Bill Committee, where I often found myself going home in the evening and thinking, how could I have agreed with the Liberal Democrats so much? But I looked in myself in the mirror, had a wash and got over that in the next morning. But, miss Lord, planning decisions, as we know, shape our towns and villages for generations to come and they determine where new homes are built, how much pressure is placed on roads, schools and health care services, and whether the character of our neighbourhoods is preserved.
These decisions have real consequences for the people who live with them every day, and it is therefore essential that local residents have a meaningful opportunity to influence them. And I say to the minister, my big concern that we warned about in the planning committee, in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, was that this government seems ardent on taking those decisions and influence away from local people, because the government's proposed approach risks weakening the democratic safeguards that allow communities to have their voices heard. This policy represents a significant shift in the balance between professional planning officers and elected local representatives, and one of the most concerning aspects of these reforms is the removal of existing arrangements that allow ward councillors to request committee consideration, or enabled an application to be referred automatically when a specified number of objections had been received.
Under the new scheme, the volume of objections cannot in itself justify referral to committee. Instead, applications must meet the national criteria and the nominated officer and nominated councillor must agree that they should be referred. Consider what that means for residents who have legitimate concerns about a development in their neighbourhood. They may organise a petition, write detailed objections and encourage their neighbours to participate in the consultation process. Yet the strength of that opposition will not in itself guarantee that elected councillors will debate the application in public. Residents retain the right to submit representations, but their ability to secure committee scrutiny is restricted.
And that raises the question what is the point of encouraging people to participate in local planning consultations if the system provides fewer opportunities for their elected representatives to consider their concerns publicly, and why? If we allow this to go ahead on Saturday, as I suspect it will, why many people will be asking in my parish councils or in my borough council or on my county council, why would people bother voting for their councillor? Planning decisions are one of the most public facing decisions that a councillor makes. They live in their communities. They know that if a housing development is being built round the corner or a pub is being closed, be converted into something else, they know what should be referred to their planning committee.
This is being taken away for a faceless officer to make that decision instead. And that is not accountability. That is not accountable. Yes.
Friend, actually for Didcot and Wantage, I have very fond memories of the Bill Committee, where I often found myself going home in the evening and thinking, how could I have agreed with the Liberal Democrats so much? But I looked in myself in the mirror, had a wash and got over that in the next morning. But, miss Lord, planning decisions, as we know, shape our towns and villages for generations to come and they determine where new homes are built, how much pressure is placed on roads, schools and health care services, and whether the character of our neighbourhoods is preserved.
These decisions have real consequences for the people who live with them every day, and it is therefore essential that local residents have a meaningful opportunity to influence them. And I say to the minister, my big concern that we warned about in the planning committee, in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, was that this government seems ardent on taking those decisions and influence away from local people, because the government's proposed approach risks weakening the democratic safeguards that allow communities to have their voices heard. This policy represents a significant shift in the balance between professional planning officers and elected local representatives, and one of the most concerning aspects of these reforms is the removal of existing arrangements that allow ward councillors to request committee consideration, or enabled an application to be referred automatically when a specified number of objections had been received.
Under the new scheme, the volume of objections cannot in itself justify referral to committee. Instead, applications must meet the national criteria and the nominated officer and nominated councillor must agree that they should be referred. Consider what that means for residents who have legitimate concerns about a development in their neighbourhood. They may organise a petition, write detailed objections and encourage their neighbours to participate in the consultation process. Yet the strength of that opposition will not in itself guarantee that elected councillors will debate the application in public. Residents retain the right to submit representations, but their ability to secure committee scrutiny is restricted.
And that raises the question what is the point of encouraging people to participate in local planning consultations if the system provides fewer opportunities for their elected representatives to consider their concerns publicly, and why? If we allow this to go ahead on Saturday, as I suspect it will, why many people will be asking in my parish councils or in my borough council or on my county council, why would people bother voting for their councillor? Planning decisions are one of the most public facing decisions that a councillor makes. They live in their communities. They know that if a housing development is being built round the corner or a pub is being closed, be converted into something else, they know what should be referred to their planning committee.
This is being taken away for a faceless officer to make that decision instead. And that is not accountability. That is not accountable. Yes.
16:56
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank the honourable. member for giving way. In Buckinghamshire, we don't yet have a local plan , and right now we're seeing speculative application after speculative application going in. Does he agree with me that removing the right for ward councillors to call those applications in not only undermines accountability? It makes our greenbelt even more vulnerable.
16:57
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I agree with the honourable lady because councils are going through a process to to develop a local plan. They will know alongside officers which applications should be able to be called in if a local plan is ratified, if there is no local plan and you have small speculative developments happening across a whole constituency, that soon adds up, and if the honourable lady's constituents won't be able to play a massive part in being able to shape those developments and craft those developments, it begs the question, what do they serve for? And I think that will be the question that is resoundingly going across local government this afternoon.
A national framework cannot be expected to capture every local nuance. While the government argues that the scheme will create greater consistency and allow committees to focus on significant applications, there is a risk that standardised standardisation, if I said that correctly, will come at the expense of local discretion. Consistency should not be preventing councils from responding to the particular needs and concerns of their residents. And I say, Miss Lowell, minor delegations do not mean that planning decisions are any less important. And I'll give her an example. In my constituency there is a pub called the Pear Tree Inn in Bowling Green that is owned by a brewery who wanted to sell off a huge amount of the local play area and car park for six houses.
Local councillors were dead against it. It was the only local pub in the area. It's a very valued asset to the local community under this scheme that would not be able to be referred by a ward councillor. It would not be able to be debated by ward councillors who represent the community. I, as the Member of Parliament, can make a written representation but wouldn't be able to go to a planning committee led by councillors to make that decision and that is fundamentally wrong, which is why now a parish council is being able to submit that pub.
Under current legislation, submit that pub to be an asset of community value. If an officer was making that decision without the importance of a referral by a ward member, then that decision would not be the same as the one that has happened. An excellent decision by Eastleigh Borough Council to refuse that planning permission by its ward councillors, who are elected by the people that live there now. I'm not against building new homes and nor am I arguing against the expertise of planning officers. It is an argument for ensuring that development takes place alongside transparency, public participation and democratic accountability.
If the government wants communities to support development, it must recognise that people are more likely to have confidence in the decisions when they feel their voices have genuinely been heard. Finally, Miss Lyall, this government has spoken hugely today in the budget, has spoken hugely about devolution and empowering local people and she will not get. The Minister will not get any argument against that from me. I hope that she brings the mayoral elections for Hampshire forward to 2027, her department. But she can't have it both ways. She can't devolve to local people while taking away some of the most retail decisions that councillors and local elected people make.
On behalf of those people with one hand and give with the other, that is a topsy turvy world. It will cause the government huge issues with resentment from local people about the public participation processes that they are expected to undertake, particularly with mayoral elections, and I ask her seriously to go back to the department. I appreciate it's not all within her brief, but she goes back to the department and gives the strength of feeling that this government is making and doing against locally elected councillors. They are not happy. Neither are we, and more importantly, neither are the people in which we serve.
A national framework cannot be expected to capture every local nuance. While the government argues that the scheme will create greater consistency and allow committees to focus on significant applications, there is a risk that standardised standardisation, if I said that correctly, will come at the expense of local discretion. Consistency should not be preventing councils from responding to the particular needs and concerns of their residents. And I say, Miss Lowell, minor delegations do not mean that planning decisions are any less important. And I'll give her an example. In my constituency there is a pub called the Pear Tree Inn in Bowling Green that is owned by a brewery who wanted to sell off a huge amount of the local play area and car park for six houses.
Local councillors were dead against it. It was the only local pub in the area. It's a very valued asset to the local community under this scheme that would not be able to be referred by a ward councillor. It would not be able to be debated by ward councillors who represent the community. I, as the Member of Parliament, can make a written representation but wouldn't be able to go to a planning committee led by councillors to make that decision and that is fundamentally wrong, which is why now a parish council is being able to submit that pub.
Under current legislation, submit that pub to be an asset of community value. If an officer was making that decision without the importance of a referral by a ward member, then that decision would not be the same as the one that has happened. An excellent decision by Eastleigh Borough Council to refuse that planning permission by its ward councillors, who are elected by the people that live there now. I'm not against building new homes and nor am I arguing against the expertise of planning officers. It is an argument for ensuring that development takes place alongside transparency, public participation and democratic accountability.
If the government wants communities to support development, it must recognise that people are more likely to have confidence in the decisions when they feel their voices have genuinely been heard. Finally, Miss Lyall, this government has spoken hugely today in the budget, has spoken hugely about devolution and empowering local people and she will not get. The Minister will not get any argument against that from me. I hope that she brings the mayoral elections for Hampshire forward to 2027, her department. But she can't have it both ways. She can't devolve to local people while taking away some of the most retail decisions that councillors and local elected people make.
On behalf of those people with one hand and give with the other, that is a topsy turvy world. It will cause the government huge issues with resentment from local people about the public participation processes that they are expected to undertake, particularly with mayoral elections, and I ask her seriously to go back to the department. I appreciate it's not all within her brief, but she goes back to the department and gives the strength of feeling that this government is making and doing against locally elected councillors. They are not happy. Neither are we, and more importantly, neither are the people in which we serve.
17:00
17:00
17:00
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Chair, under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the Right Honourable member for Aldridge-brownhills on securing this important debate. Moyra from Tring asked me, how can we take back our democracy, which is being eroded at a shocking rate? And yes, she is talking about planning. She's talking about this change. She read about these planning decisions that were being taken from the councillors that she has elected. And she is absolutely right. First, the conservative government were their top down targets and now this Labour government who just keeps taking power away from local councils and therefore communities. There have been continuous changes to national planning policy framework, with over 3000 drafting changes all taking power away.
The introduction of Grey Belt has effectively opened our green belt to developers. Even higher top down targets mean that, for example, this week, after Saint Albans have adopted a housing plan, the government are adding 9000 more. And for Dacorum, the other side of my constituency, another 6000 more . Again after a local plan has just been secured and all while we are facing Luton Airport expansion and Bedford Universal Studios, which are impacting infrastructure on local people. And now from this Saturday, this latest regulation means officers must decide householder applications and schemes of up to nine homes, and ward councillors and town and parish councillors lose the right to call them in, as has been reiterated by members across the chamber today, and what has also been eloquently highlighted.
Honourable member previously, the scale and nature of planning applications doesn't necessarily imply they're not controversial or important. These are even small things have a massive impact on our community, and it doesn't mean that just because they're under this scope, that they don't deserve to be looked at more closely by a committee of democratically elected councillors. And so Lib Dem councillors from Decorum and Saint Albans are horrified and share Maura's concerns. But their hands will be tied by this regulation and legal challenge. Thanks to this government and in light of this, Liberal Democrat Dacorum Borough Council have voted to hold an extra meeting of its Development Management Committee.
So, as many called in, applications as possible can be heard before the new changes take effect. But this is no way to run our country or local councils, and what they really need are long term changes to planning law that support local communities. Voices like whether it's from Tring, Redbourn, Berkhamsted, Sandridge and all they want to do is get planning right for the place where they live and raise legitimate concerns about their everyday lives. They know that we need to build. They want a say in the homes, the buildings and infrastructure that will impact their lives.
And ministers have said. And as the member for Cotton Wantage highlighted, there has been an excuse. But this will speed up house building. But actually, and the member for Aldridge-brownhills, I think, also raised it. But actually, in terms of planning permission, 62 survey showed of 62 councils found that over 200,000 homes with planning permission still haven't started. And so committees are not the bottleneck. And so if this government truly believes in power in every postcode, if they're going to walk the walk, instead of just talk the talk, people will feel it in their planning.
It is so vital. So will the minister and the government stop taking powers away from local communities and actually give them the powers back about their homes, the infrastructure to get it right? Will they restore? Call in for ward councillors and town and parish councils and tackle the real problem unbuilt homes with use it or lose it planning permission. And they also look at wider reforms to bring our communities with us.
The introduction of Grey Belt has effectively opened our green belt to developers. Even higher top down targets mean that, for example, this week, after Saint Albans have adopted a housing plan, the government are adding 9000 more. And for Dacorum, the other side of my constituency, another 6000 more . Again after a local plan has just been secured and all while we are facing Luton Airport expansion and Bedford Universal Studios, which are impacting infrastructure on local people. And now from this Saturday, this latest regulation means officers must decide householder applications and schemes of up to nine homes, and ward councillors and town and parish councillors lose the right to call them in, as has been reiterated by members across the chamber today, and what has also been eloquently highlighted.
Honourable member previously, the scale and nature of planning applications doesn't necessarily imply they're not controversial or important. These are even small things have a massive impact on our community, and it doesn't mean that just because they're under this scope, that they don't deserve to be looked at more closely by a committee of democratically elected councillors. And so Lib Dem councillors from Decorum and Saint Albans are horrified and share Maura's concerns. But their hands will be tied by this regulation and legal challenge. Thanks to this government and in light of this, Liberal Democrat Dacorum Borough Council have voted to hold an extra meeting of its Development Management Committee.
So, as many called in, applications as possible can be heard before the new changes take effect. But this is no way to run our country or local councils, and what they really need are long term changes to planning law that support local communities. Voices like whether it's from Tring, Redbourn, Berkhamsted, Sandridge and all they want to do is get planning right for the place where they live and raise legitimate concerns about their everyday lives. They know that we need to build. They want a say in the homes, the buildings and infrastructure that will impact their lives.
And ministers have said. And as the member for Cotton Wantage highlighted, there has been an excuse. But this will speed up house building. But actually, and the member for Aldridge-brownhills, I think, also raised it. But actually, in terms of planning permission, 62 survey showed of 62 councils found that over 200,000 homes with planning permission still haven't started. And so committees are not the bottleneck. And so if this government truly believes in power in every postcode, if they're going to walk the walk, instead of just talk the talk, people will feel it in their planning.
It is so vital. So will the minister and the government stop taking powers away from local communities and actually give them the powers back about their homes, the infrastructure to get it right? Will they restore? Call in for ward councillors and town and parish councils and tackle the real problem unbuilt homes with use it or lose it planning permission. And they also look at wider reforms to bring our communities with us.
17:04
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you Slade. Thank you. Mr.. Well, it's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, and I want to thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-brownhills for securing this important debate, which I know will be so important to those people in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Pole. And I've spoken at length about large scale developments being proposed with insufficient infrastructure and new homes, as well as sitting empty as well as unbuilt homes. And I hope the minister can pass a message back to the Secretary of State that I am still waiting for the promised meeting that she said I could have in the chamber.
But today I want to focus specifically on on the schedule one in the scheme of allegations. And I accept that the vast majority of planning applications are rightly determined by professional officers. But when applications are controversial, where communities have legitimate concerns or residents simply need confidence that their voices have been heard, these committees play a really vital role. They are not there to frustrate development. They are there to improve it. They bring together the three important sides professional advice, local knowledge and public scrutiny, allowing elected representatives to listen to applicants, officers and residents and identify solutions to make development more acceptable to everyone.
They are often the best of democracy and they can be the closest. Many of our constituents get to influencing the places where they live. Recent examples from my area, shared by Lib Dem councillors today demonstrate that value. In one application considered and refused today, the councillors refused an application based on height, density and design, but were able to debate how the proposal could better fit with the character of an area. In a case last month, members considered the impact of neighbours of three bungalows being squeezed onto a plot for one, and discussed the conditions that might make a future application more acceptable.
Both were rejected today, but they expect them to come back, but better that ability to shape development rather than just approve or reject it is a crucial part of the process. Now, supporters of the changes argue that community engagement should take place through local plans, and I do understand that. But local plans and planning committees serve very different purposes and different timelines. As has already been explained by my colleague from Chesham and Amersham, local plans are often out of date and when they're rewritten, they create a bird's eye view of a community they don't see inside the window of a poorly placed neighbour's extension.
They can allocate land, but they can't tell you if a particular design respects the character of a street or whether a historic feature like the The Wall in My ward, which was built by Italian prisoners of war, should be retained. That's only something local councillors and local residents know. And with the funding slashed for neighbourhood plans, which the honourable member for Hamble Valley and I were discussing when we were on the devolution bill together. Now communities don't even have the opportunities to create those new neighbourhood plans to get that much closer position. I want to give you another example that was also shared with me today in Poole, where a recommendation for a HMO was was going to be approved, and had there not been local concern, it would not have gone to committee where a mistake was discovered, a mistake that meant that the planning officer thought that meant that nine additional properties were going to be created, and therefore the housing capacity would be affected, when in fact a HMO does not create nine additional properties.
If it had not gone to planning committee, that mistake would have not been able to be fixed because the decision would have been published too late. Community wouldn't have had their say. And these people are not blockers. They are trying to make their communities better. They recognise that planning officers make the recommendations on law and policy, but they contextualise it. Another issue that hasn't been covered is that many planning applications are now determined from afar. Since Covid, we've had planning officers working from Northern Ireland and only seeing the sites on Google Maps. It's the councillors are the ones that can tell you the context of whether a site is overhanging another, not somebody who's been shipped in on a contract from afar.
The government frequently speaks about devolution and empowering communities, but devolution should mean trusting local people and their elected representatives, not reducing their involvement in decisions that affect the places where they live. And one Dorset resident who put it to me today put it far better than I. They said if a community is going to feel it's been completely shafted by a decision, they should at least be a meaningful opportunity to secure measures that address its concerns and help rebuild trust in the process. That ultimately, is what planning committees provide trust, transparency and democratic legitimacy. By removing that layer of local decision making, we may make some decisions faster, but we risk weakening public confidence in the planning system itself.
But today I want to focus specifically on on the schedule one in the scheme of allegations. And I accept that the vast majority of planning applications are rightly determined by professional officers. But when applications are controversial, where communities have legitimate concerns or residents simply need confidence that their voices have been heard, these committees play a really vital role. They are not there to frustrate development. They are there to improve it. They bring together the three important sides professional advice, local knowledge and public scrutiny, allowing elected representatives to listen to applicants, officers and residents and identify solutions to make development more acceptable to everyone.
They are often the best of democracy and they can be the closest. Many of our constituents get to influencing the places where they live. Recent examples from my area, shared by Lib Dem councillors today demonstrate that value. In one application considered and refused today, the councillors refused an application based on height, density and design, but were able to debate how the proposal could better fit with the character of an area. In a case last month, members considered the impact of neighbours of three bungalows being squeezed onto a plot for one, and discussed the conditions that might make a future application more acceptable.
Both were rejected today, but they expect them to come back, but better that ability to shape development rather than just approve or reject it is a crucial part of the process. Now, supporters of the changes argue that community engagement should take place through local plans, and I do understand that. But local plans and planning committees serve very different purposes and different timelines. As has already been explained by my colleague from Chesham and Amersham, local plans are often out of date and when they're rewritten, they create a bird's eye view of a community they don't see inside the window of a poorly placed neighbour's extension.
They can allocate land, but they can't tell you if a particular design respects the character of a street or whether a historic feature like the The Wall in My ward, which was built by Italian prisoners of war, should be retained. That's only something local councillors and local residents know. And with the funding slashed for neighbourhood plans, which the honourable member for Hamble Valley and I were discussing when we were on the devolution bill together. Now communities don't even have the opportunities to create those new neighbourhood plans to get that much closer position. I want to give you another example that was also shared with me today in Poole, where a recommendation for a HMO was was going to be approved, and had there not been local concern, it would not have gone to committee where a mistake was discovered, a mistake that meant that the planning officer thought that meant that nine additional properties were going to be created, and therefore the housing capacity would be affected, when in fact a HMO does not create nine additional properties.
If it had not gone to planning committee, that mistake would have not been able to be fixed because the decision would have been published too late. Community wouldn't have had their say. And these people are not blockers. They are trying to make their communities better. They recognise that planning officers make the recommendations on law and policy, but they contextualise it. Another issue that hasn't been covered is that many planning applications are now determined from afar. Since Covid, we've had planning officers working from Northern Ireland and only seeing the sites on Google Maps. It's the councillors are the ones that can tell you the context of whether a site is overhanging another, not somebody who's been shipped in on a contract from afar.
The government frequently speaks about devolution and empowering communities, but devolution should mean trusting local people and their elected representatives, not reducing their involvement in decisions that affect the places where they live. And one Dorset resident who put it to me today put it far better than I. They said if a community is going to feel it's been completely shafted by a decision, they should at least be a meaningful opportunity to secure measures that address its concerns and help rebuild trust in the process. That ultimately, is what planning committees provide trust, transparency and democratic legitimacy. By removing that layer of local decision making, we may make some decisions faster, but we risk weakening public confidence in the planning system itself.
17:09
17:09
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you. Mr.. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the honourable member for Aldridge-brownhills on securing this debate. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by the introduction of a national scheme of delegation, which gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers and allows planning decisions to bypass local planning committees. We oppose this approach throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, including by seeking to protect the existing powers of committees. Faster planning decisions should come from properly resourced planning departments, and by giving the councils the freedom to set planning fields fees that truly reflect the cost of their job, not by shutting communities out of decisions about their local areas.
On Saturday, a national scheme of delegation will come into force. Every council in England must rewrite its constitution to match it, and none has been given a say on whether to do so. Planning is where most people first meet local democracy. As many members have said, it's one of the most important reasons why they vote for a councillor in the first place. Household applications, household applications, minor commercial applications, schemes of up to nine homes and a range of technical decisions must now go to officers for other applications. The committee can step in only where it raises a significant issue and an officer nominated member both agree a councillor cannot refer an application alone.
The ward members call in has gone, and so has the route by which enough objections would bring in. Bring an application to committee. Nine homes next to your own is not a minor matter if that's your home. And councillors, of course, will still be blamed for this. When something is built that nobody wanted, residents will ask their councillor why, and the honest answer will be that they had no control over it whatsoever. The government's case is that committees slow things down, but the reality is that this country does not have a permissions problem in the first place.
Councils already approve 9 in 10 applications. The. Sorry, I've lost my place. I will, yes. Thank you. Yes.
On Saturday, a national scheme of delegation will come into force. Every council in England must rewrite its constitution to match it, and none has been given a say on whether to do so. Planning is where most people first meet local democracy. As many members have said, it's one of the most important reasons why they vote for a councillor in the first place. Household applications, household applications, minor commercial applications, schemes of up to nine homes and a range of technical decisions must now go to officers for other applications. The committee can step in only where it raises a significant issue and an officer nominated member both agree a councillor cannot refer an application alone.
The ward members call in has gone, and so has the route by which enough objections would bring in. Bring an application to committee. Nine homes next to your own is not a minor matter if that's your home. And councillors, of course, will still be blamed for this. When something is built that nobody wanted, residents will ask their councillor why, and the honest answer will be that they had no control over it whatsoever. The government's case is that committees slow things down, but the reality is that this country does not have a permissions problem in the first place.
Councils already approve 9 in 10 applications. The. Sorry, I've lost my place. I will, yes. Thank you. Yes.
17:11
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Dem spokesman for giving way. He will know that both the Liberal. In fact, the honourable member for Didcot and wanted. Said that the Liberal Democrats, conservatives, Greens and a cross-party delegation on the Bill Committee came up with sensible amendments to try and make sure that there was a balance between efficiency in the planning system and the criteria to which officers might be able to have decisions, more decisions, but still involving local councils.
I wonder if he could elaborate on what some of his thoughts are on where the balance is between councillors and planning officers.
I wonder if he could elaborate on what some of his thoughts are on where the balance is between councillors and planning officers.
17:12
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank the member for his intervention. I very much agree, and I'll come on to that. Removing local scrutiny, as this scheme does, touches none of these problems. Where delay is real, it lies in planning departments running at about 80% of the staff that they actually need, and with 1 in 5 major applications decided on time and in fees that the government accepts do not cover the cost of the work, the Liberal Democrats said. So throughout the passage of the Planning Infrastructure Act , and my hon. Friend the member for Taunton and Wellington tabled 78 amendments in committee and more than 50 on report, part of which was to protect planning committees.
Unfortunately, the government did not accept any of these amendments. The government has decided that residents are just a nuisance to be overcome by these measures, which come on top of years of reduced neighbourhood control. They have killed one bird with a thousand stones. It's not as if local people had much say over things even beforehand. The Liberal Democrats regret the lack of any attempt to build consent, and this is just storing up problems and resentment for the future, as members have said. So I ask the minister, will the government let a ward member bring an application to committee on behalf of residents as the locally elected official, will it look again at the standard method, which is the flawed formula that sets local targets?
Will it commit to telling us in plain terms whether this change is doing what it's supposed to by 2028 at the latest? And finally, national fees are planned at an estimated 90% cost recovery. So will the government commit to full cost recovery so that planning departments are properly resourced? Basically, we need to rediscover the principle of consent.
Unfortunately, the government did not accept any of these amendments. The government has decided that residents are just a nuisance to be overcome by these measures, which come on top of years of reduced neighbourhood control. They have killed one bird with a thousand stones. It's not as if local people had much say over things even beforehand. The Liberal Democrats regret the lack of any attempt to build consent, and this is just storing up problems and resentment for the future, as members have said. So I ask the minister, will the government let a ward member bring an application to committee on behalf of residents as the locally elected official, will it look again at the standard method, which is the flawed formula that sets local targets?
Will it commit to telling us in plain terms whether this change is doing what it's supposed to by 2028 at the latest? And finally, national fees are planned at an estimated 90% cost recovery. So will the government commit to full cost recovery so that planning departments are properly resourced? Basically, we need to rediscover the principle of consent.
17:14
17:14
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you. Mr.. Well, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and take part in this debate about the national scheme of delegation. I want to start by thanking the right hon. My right hon. Friend the member for Aldridge-brownhills for securing this important debate, and I know the right hon. Lady always fights to protect the green belt in her constituency, and I was sitting here reflecting on what members had said, and I don't think there's much I disagree with. And it took me back, and I know a number of members across this chamber on the bill committee.
And it took me back to some of the arguments we thrashed out on that debate. When I speak to constituents right across Broxbourne, planning is one of the biggest issues that comes up door after door, election after election. And we know from hearing the accounts from members from across the House today that this is also the case elsewhere across the United Kingdom, right from Aldridge-brownhills to Hamble Valley, to name a few. The government would love for everyone to think that local councillors are the main barrier to housebuilding. They want to move to a system where new applications all over the green belt are rubber stamped by officials.
Instead, the truth of the matter as who? As already has been said, the vast majority of planning decisions are already made by officers as many as 96%, according to the government's own figures, the national scheme of delegation won't magically fix the Secretary of State's failure to build the 1.5 million new homes that she promised. What these measures will do is undermine local government and expand the state even more. Unfortunately, we see it time and time again. The same developer comes along with a plan entirely inappropriate for the local area. Perhaps there are vague promises for a school or a park that we know that will never get built, and the local community make their views very clear that they do not want to see these plans.
Even when the council's planning committee vote against them, they get overruled by the planning inspector as they decide as some bit of land is grey belt rather than green belt. Often, as has already been said, without even visiting the site, that, Madam Chair, is just not right. The Labour government are forcing massive new housing developments on areas like Goffs Oak in my constituency, whilst reducing targets in London to cover up Sadiq Khan's failings. And this is at the same time that we've got a Prime Minister that is going on and on about devolution, how local leaders are the ones best placed to make local decisions.
This is so inconsistent. I will give way.
And it took me back to some of the arguments we thrashed out on that debate. When I speak to constituents right across Broxbourne, planning is one of the biggest issues that comes up door after door, election after election. And we know from hearing the accounts from members from across the House today that this is also the case elsewhere across the United Kingdom, right from Aldridge-brownhills to Hamble Valley, to name a few. The government would love for everyone to think that local councillors are the main barrier to housebuilding. They want to move to a system where new applications all over the green belt are rubber stamped by officials.
Instead, the truth of the matter as who? As already has been said, the vast majority of planning decisions are already made by officers as many as 96%, according to the government's own figures, the national scheme of delegation won't magically fix the Secretary of State's failure to build the 1.5 million new homes that she promised. What these measures will do is undermine local government and expand the state even more. Unfortunately, we see it time and time again. The same developer comes along with a plan entirely inappropriate for the local area. Perhaps there are vague promises for a school or a park that we know that will never get built, and the local community make their views very clear that they do not want to see these plans.
Even when the council's planning committee vote against them, they get overruled by the planning inspector as they decide as some bit of land is grey belt rather than green belt. Often, as has already been said, without even visiting the site, that, Madam Chair, is just not right. The Labour government are forcing massive new housing developments on areas like Goffs Oak in my constituency, whilst reducing targets in London to cover up Sadiq Khan's failings. And this is at the same time that we've got a Prime Minister that is going on and on about devolution, how local leaders are the ones best placed to make local decisions.
This is so inconsistent. I will give way.
17:16
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Just on that. On that point about local leaders making decisions and showing leadership, does he agree with me that it's important that we actually see that because in areas like Walsall, what we're not seeing from the new leadership there, from the Reform Council is really strong leadership on this. And one of the areas that I really think needs to some more pushback on is looking at duty to cooperate with other areas, because in our area, Birmingham housing target has gone down. Ours has gone up. There are some towns and cities in neighbouring counties that actually want more housing and have more brownfield.
17:17
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
I thank the honourable lady for that intervention. I completely agree with her. She's right to mention the duty to cooperate and and local leaders must step up to the plate. That is what they're elected to do. And that is what their residents expect. Residents, as I said, expect their local councillors to represent them, not hide behind the duty to cooperate. They must cooperate across borders. They don't need powers taken away from them and given to unaccountable bureaucrats in district council headquarters. Under the National Scheme of Delegation, proposals for under ten properties will only be looked at by planning officers.
This means that only in very limited circumstances, there will be no way for councillors, local councillors to bring those decisions before a planning committee. Planning officers are not elected and they are not accountable to voters. Everyone knows that sometimes planning officers get this wrong and the decisions need to be overturned. I've seen it. I've served on a planning committee and the trouble is, once a planning application gets approval, once it gets built, it's there for a very long time. It's very difficult to rectify it once it goes wrong. Does the government really think that unelected officials are better placed to make decisions on local issues than elected councillors?
People vote for their councillors to represent them on planning issues and can hold their councillors accountable at the ballot box. But here it's just not what is at stake. Planning is at stake, but trust in politics as a whole is also at stake. Removing powers from elected representatives is an attack on British democracy, and the British people can see right through it. Local action groups like Goffs Oak Community Association are already fighting tooth and nail to stop their towns and villages being wrecked by inappropriate developments, which are often proposed without any sort of adequate infrastructure.
The government clearly does not care about their views, otherwise they wouldn't be bringing in this national scheme of delegation. These changes also ignore the fact that planning committees are not just there to approve or deny application. Councillors talk with local people and can address their concerns by putting conditions on development, which has already been.
This means that only in very limited circumstances, there will be no way for councillors, local councillors to bring those decisions before a planning committee. Planning officers are not elected and they are not accountable to voters. Everyone knows that sometimes planning officers get this wrong and the decisions need to be overturned. I've seen it. I've served on a planning committee and the trouble is, once a planning application gets approval, once it gets built, it's there for a very long time. It's very difficult to rectify it once it goes wrong. Does the government really think that unelected officials are better placed to make decisions on local issues than elected councillors?
People vote for their councillors to represent them on planning issues and can hold their councillors accountable at the ballot box. But here it's just not what is at stake. Planning is at stake, but trust in politics as a whole is also at stake. Removing powers from elected representatives is an attack on British democracy, and the British people can see right through it. Local action groups like Goffs Oak Community Association are already fighting tooth and nail to stop their towns and villages being wrecked by inappropriate developments, which are often proposed without any sort of adequate infrastructure.
The government clearly does not care about their views, otherwise they wouldn't be bringing in this national scheme of delegation. These changes also ignore the fact that planning committees are not just there to approve or deny application. Councillors talk with local people and can address their concerns by putting conditions on development, which has already been.
17:19
17:19
17:19
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
He raises a good point, and there's another concern that I have is that if you're looking at infrastructure such as housing, such as healthcare facilities or more importantly, larger scale road networks, quite often locally elected councillors and MPs work together to secure the funding from central government, but also maybe a county council. And my concern, and I wonder if he shares it, that in some of these larger schemes that are going to be decided by planning officers, the ability to get that multi layered approach to funding actually will not be there , because there will not be the political will to do so.
17:19
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Marlborough Friend is absolutely right. If we don't have local people having a say over planning applications. That includes local councillors with the input from the local community and MPs, we will not have development that comes forward with the appropriate infrastructure and that is what our constituents from right across the country expect. I'm pleased to say that my party has firmly stood against these proposals from the start, and if the minister really wants to deliver on the government's promise to devolve power to every postcode across the United Kingdom, then she will stop this attack on the on local democracy and bin this scheme once and for all.
17:20
17:20
17:20
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Whelan. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. As honourable members have identified, I am not the Minister for housing. The Minister for housing is in another committee as we speak, but I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government, and I will make sure the strength of feeling and further questions have been raised today are fed back and.
17:20
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I will not persistently intervene, I can assure you. But just with that, on that specific point, can the Minister reassure me that where questions are asked today and if she is unable to answer, and I appreciate it's not her portfolio, could she ensure that the minister responds to those of us on this committee and publicly in writing, before these regulations come into force on Saturday, because it's absolutely critical that members here and councillors across the country fully understand the implications.
17:21
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I will ensure that the that request is fed back to the Minister for housing, and the strength of feeling is on it as well. I would like to thank the Right Honourable member for Aldridge-brownhills for securing today's important debate, and I'd also like to thank all the honourable members for their contributions on the subject. The modernisation of planning committees, as many will know, is a big part of the housing and infrastructure delivery that the government intends on our reforms here, about creating a level playing field across the country to give certainty to both communities and developers about the process, their applications will follow.
We recognise the vital role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight for important development decisions in their area. Our reforms were a key measure in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, and they're intended to support them in this crucial role so that they can be as effective as possible. In doing so. Oh, gosh.
We recognise the vital role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight for important development decisions in their area. Our reforms were a key measure in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, and they're intended to support them in this crucial role so that they can be as effective as possible. In doing so. Oh, gosh.
17:22
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I won't intervene on any further. She talks about giving people certainty, but the certainty that could have been created by this government is putting the planning system standardised, the planning system in favour of councillors making the decisions that they were sent to local councils to make. The reason that the government hasn't is because they have made a political decision to take that power away. Does she agree with that?
17:22
17:22
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I don't agree with that. And there was extensive consultation done around this policy before it was brought in. I believe there were three rounds of consultation, in fact, done. The national scheme of delegation, which will come into force this Sunday, will allow committees to focus on the larger and more complex development proposals, which really require member input. These are the applications which matter most to communities and those that which will deliver the kind of development that local people desperately want to see. We also want to ensure that skilled planning officers and councils are trusted and empowered to make decisions on more applications and more quickly to ensure development is brought forward in the right place at the right time.
The national scheme of delegation will mean that officers will spend less time and resource prepping for committee meetings or for smaller applications, speed up decision making processes more broadly and freeing up time to focus on larger and more complex applications. It will also provide greater clarity and consistency across the country about who, in a local planning authority will determine applications and irrespective of whether a decision is made by an officer or a planning committee, the important thing is that both are working to serve the interests of their community. I want to thank the member for Didcot and Wantage, who praised his council's record in relation to planning, and I hear the concerns he's raised and as I've said, we'll make sure that is fed back the.
The national scheme of delegation will mean that officers will spend less time and resource prepping for committee meetings or for smaller applications, speed up decision making processes more broadly and freeing up time to focus on larger and more complex applications. It will also provide greater clarity and consistency across the country about who, in a local planning authority will determine applications and irrespective of whether a decision is made by an officer or a planning committee, the important thing is that both are working to serve the interests of their community. I want to thank the member for Didcot and Wantage, who praised his council's record in relation to planning, and I hear the concerns he's raised and as I've said, we'll make sure that is fed back the.
17:24
17:24
17:24
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I will come to that later in my speech, but I will just come to you because I'm just very conscious of time. The government has been very clear during the many consultations and parliamentary debates on these planning committee reforms, that they are not in any way intended to be an attack on local democracy. We recognise that councillors and communities are central to deciding what development is right for their area, and that the government believes the best way for them to do that is at the beginning of the process, when the Local Plan is being developed, the national scheme of delegation will support the plan led system.
It will allow planning committees to operate as effectively as possible. For example, they will not need to revisit the same decisions that have already been considered through the Local Plan process. Instead, they will be able to focus on those applications which really require member input. I must also stress that decision makers, whether they are members or officers, must determine applications in accordance with the Local plan , unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and having an up to date local Plan will have the biggest bearing on the outcome of a robust decision. Importantly, we are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications.
Local residents and elected councillors will still be able to make their views known on individual applications, and regardless of who the decision maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits of the development, they will continue to be taken into account in reaching decisions on transparency and reporting. It's clearly important local communities know about the decisions that are being made on their behalf. This includes decisions on the referral of schedule two applications to the committee. We've set out requirements for this in the statutory guidance to which local authorities must have regard, and as a minimum, we would expect local authorities to keep a record of cases.
The nominated officer, the nominated member have considered for referral to the committee the outcome of their consideration and the reasons for their decision, and this should be reported to the planning committee on a regular basis and made available on the authority's website. In relation to a couple of points raised around HMOs, a strong local plan, particularly featuring HMOs, should be able to guide planning officers, but I will ask the Minister to write to honourable members who raised that and provide further information on it, and I will also feed back in relation to websites and the council advertising campaign as well, in relation to devolution and powers of strategic authorities.
I am, as it happens, the Minister for the Devolution strategy and the Rewiring the state plan, and we will be setting that out later this year as part of the government's ten year plan, and I thank the honourable members will see that this government is serious about putting power back in communities, and part of that is having a strengthened local government. And I can give an example in my in my own strategic authority, we announced this week that we will be reopening Doncaster Sheffield Airport, which is going to have a massive impact on the local community in terms of jobs and growth.
And this is a prime example of how rewiring the state can bring the power and prosperity that has been referenced today in relation to mandatory training for members. The government's priority has been getting the national scheme of delegation in place. Now that is complete, there will be resuming work on member training. Further stakeholder engagement is needed as to how we'll make that a credible and cost effective system, and I know the minister will work with local government and honourable members to ensure that that is robust. On the approach to the size of the committee's planning committees need to be the right size for informed decision making.
There's been examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates and not getting anywhere. The intention behind introducing the cap was to ensure that the more focused and better quality. I think initially the planning committees were going to have 11 members, but that's been increased to 13, representing that some because some councils are represented by a number of political parties, and that is a direct feedback from consultation on the national scheme of delegation. It's something new. We recognise the need to ensure that it works on the ground as intended, and that's why, following the consultation on the draft regulations earlier this year, we inserted further provision into the regulations to require that they are reviewed within two years of coming into force.
This will give opportunity to monitor the implementation of the regulations. I take the request that this is looked at before the two year mark, and I will feed that back to the minister and ask him to come back, even if it's some kind of interim or informal assessment of how that has been going. Once again, I'm grateful to the Right Honourable member for Aldridge-brownhills for securing this debate and for the contributions from other colleagues on this important issue. I recognise that not all the questions raised may have been answered, but I'll ensure the Minister comes back to honourable members where I haven't had the time to do so, and I would like to close by reiterating that the reforms to planning committees, including the national Scheme of delegation, are intended to support, not undermine committees.
We want them to be as effective as they possibly can, so they serve the best interests of our communities.
It will allow planning committees to operate as effectively as possible. For example, they will not need to revisit the same decisions that have already been considered through the Local Plan process. Instead, they will be able to focus on those applications which really require member input. I must also stress that decision makers, whether they are members or officers, must determine applications in accordance with the Local plan , unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and having an up to date local Plan will have the biggest bearing on the outcome of a robust decision. Importantly, we are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications.
Local residents and elected councillors will still be able to make their views known on individual applications, and regardless of who the decision maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits of the development, they will continue to be taken into account in reaching decisions on transparency and reporting. It's clearly important local communities know about the decisions that are being made on their behalf. This includes decisions on the referral of schedule two applications to the committee. We've set out requirements for this in the statutory guidance to which local authorities must have regard, and as a minimum, we would expect local authorities to keep a record of cases.
The nominated officer, the nominated member have considered for referral to the committee the outcome of their consideration and the reasons for their decision, and this should be reported to the planning committee on a regular basis and made available on the authority's website. In relation to a couple of points raised around HMOs, a strong local plan, particularly featuring HMOs, should be able to guide planning officers, but I will ask the Minister to write to honourable members who raised that and provide further information on it, and I will also feed back in relation to websites and the council advertising campaign as well, in relation to devolution and powers of strategic authorities.
I am, as it happens, the Minister for the Devolution strategy and the Rewiring the state plan, and we will be setting that out later this year as part of the government's ten year plan, and I thank the honourable members will see that this government is serious about putting power back in communities, and part of that is having a strengthened local government. And I can give an example in my in my own strategic authority, we announced this week that we will be reopening Doncaster Sheffield Airport, which is going to have a massive impact on the local community in terms of jobs and growth.
And this is a prime example of how rewiring the state can bring the power and prosperity that has been referenced today in relation to mandatory training for members. The government's priority has been getting the national scheme of delegation in place. Now that is complete, there will be resuming work on member training. Further stakeholder engagement is needed as to how we'll make that a credible and cost effective system, and I know the minister will work with local government and honourable members to ensure that that is robust. On the approach to the size of the committee's planning committees need to be the right size for informed decision making.
There's been examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates and not getting anywhere. The intention behind introducing the cap was to ensure that the more focused and better quality. I think initially the planning committees were going to have 11 members, but that's been increased to 13, representing that some because some councils are represented by a number of political parties, and that is a direct feedback from consultation on the national scheme of delegation. It's something new. We recognise the need to ensure that it works on the ground as intended, and that's why, following the consultation on the draft regulations earlier this year, we inserted further provision into the regulations to require that they are reviewed within two years of coming into force.
This will give opportunity to monitor the implementation of the regulations. I take the request that this is looked at before the two year mark, and I will feed that back to the minister and ask him to come back, even if it's some kind of interim or informal assessment of how that has been going. Once again, I'm grateful to the Right Honourable member for Aldridge-brownhills for securing this debate and for the contributions from other colleagues on this important issue. I recognise that not all the questions raised may have been answered, but I'll ensure the Minister comes back to honourable members where I haven't had the time to do so, and I would like to close by reiterating that the reforms to planning committees, including the national Scheme of delegation, are intended to support, not undermine committees.
We want them to be as effective as they possibly can, so they serve the best interests of our communities.
17:29
17:29
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I'd like to thank all those across the house for their contributions today, it's clear that there is a lot of cross-party support, but it is noticeable that some of those who protest us about saving the greenbelt, namely our reform colleagues across the House, are nowhere to be seen in this Westminster Hall. So I know who's fighting for residents and who's standing up to protect.
17:29
17:29