debates/debates2025-07-16b conversation_23
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-16)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-16b conversation_23

Martin Wrigley:During my meetings with guests who are in my constituency under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, they have told me that they are worried about their visas running out, even with the 18-month extension. They see reports of Ukrainians being refused asylum in the United Kingdom because it is said to be safe to return to Ukraine, even while Putin’s missiles explode in record numbers in Ukrainian cities. Some of their children are working through two or three-year education courses, and are frightened of having to leave. Will the Prime Minister meet them, and me, to hear about their plight and offer them some hope in this uncertain and dangerous world? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. We are proud to have offered or extended sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families throughout the operation of the visa scheme since the invasion in 2022. We do need to provide certainty and security for Ukrainians in the United Kingdom, and we will provide an additional 18 months’ permission to remain in the UK as well as continued rights to live, work and study here. \p James Frith: In 2017 I led a Select Committee inquiry that warned of an emerging disaster in special educational needs and disability services. Those warnings went unheeded by the Conservatives, who left behind a broken system, which even they have since admitted is, “Lose, lose, lose.” Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Labour Government’s rebuilt SEND system will be shaped by listening to the needs of SEN families, never again ignored but served in the best traditions of a Labour Government? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is right. I think there is general agreement across the House that the system is broken, just like almost everything the Conservatives touched at the end of 14 miserable years. It does not work for parents and it lets children down, and we will reform it. We are already investing an additional £1 billion, but we need a system that truly supports every child. We are developing proposals, and I want to work across the House in order to secure the right outcome. \p Lindsay Hoyle: For the final question, I call Pippa Heylings. \p Pippa Heylings: Yet again, we are suffering record-breaking heatwaves and drought. That is worrying people in my constituency, which is both the fastest-growing and the most water-stressed area in the country. The proposed fens reservoir is important, but will provide water only for the already ambitious house building plans, not the thousands of new homes that the Government propose. Does the Prime Minister agree that the water crisis in Greater Cambridge is a deal-breaker for the Government’s growth plans, and will he, as a matter of urgency, help me to convene a ministerial roundtable with the Cambridge water scarcity group? \p Keir Starmer: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the drought and, more generally, the question of reservoirs. It is shocking that a new reservoir has not been built for a very, very long time—none at all in the previous 14 years. We are building now, and we are doing that alongside the infrastructure and housing that we also need to build. We will work across the House on that. \p Andrew Mitchell: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on Britain’s response to the worsening situation in Sudan. \p Catherine West: Sudan is the worst humanitarian crisis on record. Over 30 million people need aid, and 12 million people have been displaced. Famine is spreading fast, and new reports confirm that the situation will deteriorate in the next three months. Cholera is also now widespread.

Lifesaving assistance continues to be blocked by the parties. Last month, five aid workers were killed in an appalling attack on a UN convoy that was delivering lifesaving aid to those fleeing violence in El Fasher. The deliberate targeting of aid workers clearly violates international law. As the United Nations Security Council penholder on Sudan, the UK led calls for accountability for such attacks, including through the UK-penned press statement on 12 June. Last week, the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor found reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may well have been, and continue to be, committed in Darfur. The perpetrators must be held to account.

The UK continues to play a leading role in ensuring that aid gets to where it is most needed. In April, the Foreign Secretary brought together a broad coalition of partners to build consensus on strengthening humanitarian access. The co-chairs’ statement called on the parties to facilitate humanitarian access in accordance with their commitments in the Jeddah declaration. Over £810 million of funding for Sudan was announced, including £120 million of UK aid, which will support over 650,000 people this year.

In the absence of a ceasefire, the humanitarian situation will only worsen. We continue to call on the warring parties to place the interests of the Sudanese people over their pursuit of a military victory. The UK is working with our international partners to push the warring parties to return to the negotiating table and commit to a meaningful, sustainable ceasefire.

Any process that follows must be inclusive. We underline the importance of a return to civilian rule that is democratic and representative of the whole country. Moves by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to establish their own parallel Governments will only exacerbate de facto splits, and could lead to the permanent partition of Sudan. That is in no one’s interests.

We will continue to use all diplomatic tools at our disposal to protect civilians, get aid to those who need it most, and support a Sudanese-led peace process with civilians at its heart. \p Andrew Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question today.

I make no apologies for raising the dire and desperate straits of the Sudanese people again in this House, not least because Britain leads on the Sudanese situation at the United Nations on behalf of all other nations. As the Minister said, the people of Sudan are in the throes  of the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world and the situation is worsening, even if such things can hardly be imagined. Earlier this month, the United Nations and international organisations reported the mass displacement of tens of thousands of people following the combatant forces advancing across the Kordofan states. There have been months of increased mobilisation of fighters, including the recruitment of children from across Darfur. As fighting expands, the Kordofan states are the next deadly front.

In the recent and welcome ministerial conference hosted by the Foreign Secretary, much-needed money was raised, but the goal of a high-level contact group to drive political efforts towards achieving a ceasefire and protecting Sudanese civilians met with an impasse. We must accept that despite our efforts the past two years have been a story of faltering international endeavour where world events have cast Sudan into the shadows as its people have faced only deepening peril.

I ask the Minister three questions. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the siege of El Fasher and the overwhelming of the camp for displaced people at Zamzam to prepare for and protect civilians from the spread of violence across the Kordofan states? How are the Government supporting the local emergency response rooms? Secondly, can she confirm that the prevention of atrocities remains a key pillar of British policy and is unaffected by the recent cuts in the development budget? Thirdly, and finally, what are the Government doing to advance international efforts to protect civilians alongside their pursuit of a ceasefire? Are we to assume the Jeddah process is dead? What discussions has she had with her counterparts in the United States over recent weeks? \p Catherine West: I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his questions and his long-standing interest not just in Africa in general, but particularly in this awful conflict in Sudan. Of course, Sudan is also a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary, which is why he brought together Foreign Ministers to try to find a resolution. The Prime Minister has reiterated that the UK will continue to play a key humanitarian role, evidenced by the £120 million of UK aid announced for Sudan this year.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question in relation to the work post-Jeddah, we are working to sustain the momentum of the actions agreed at the conference. We continue to work with multilateral institutions, including the African Union, to ensure strong African leadership in response to the conflict. We have also joined the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan in June and we have initiated a friends of Sudan grouping in Geneva to advance our work on the protection of civilians, because the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that international law in this regard places a heavy emphasis on prevention of conflict and of atrocities. We continue to identify opportunities to use our role as penholder on Sudan in the UN Security Council and to galvanise UN Security Council action on the conflict in Sudan.

The right hon. Gentleman also specifically asked about the situation in the El Fasher camps and I want to reassure him that the UK is doing all it can, but the question is always about access. We have the money, we have the workers; it is access that we need in order to provide that lifesaving aid. That is the nub of the issue, which we are working on. \p Abtisam Mohamed: Not a single person in my Sudanese diaspora community in Sheffield has not been affected by the horrific violence in Sudan, but the most harrowing part for them is not the regular communication jams blocking parent from child and brother from sister, or the multiple displacements of millions of the most vulnerable people, or indeed the famine ripping through the population; the worst part is that while this, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, is breaking every boundary we know, world powers continue to look away.

The UK Government have a unique position as penholder for Sudan, and at the UN Security Council I appreciate that we called for a ceasefire through a resolution, but the resolution set no deadline for concluding the ceasefire and authorised no enforcement mission. So, Minister, what are we doing to enforce accountability for the shameful complicity of states backing the warring sides, and when will we push for an agreement to a ceasefire so the people of Sudan can be free from this horror? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a loud voice here on behalf her Sudanese diaspora. The most important things the UK can do to build on the momentum of the important London Sudan conference—bearing in mind that we were the first to have such a conference—are to continue to base our work on the statement from its co-chairs; to continue, as she says, to use our role at the United Nations; and to work through the new friends of Sudan grouping to keep pushing at the highest level, using our position on the UN Security Council to galvanise its action and continue the important supply of aid into the region. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Wendy Morton: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for pursuing this matter.

The situation in Sudan is dire. We are deeply concerned by the International Criminal Court’s findings last week that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may be being committed in Darfur. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, with the UN warning on 30 June of drastic cuts to life-saving food aid for Sudanese refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries. Sudan has been identified as the global hunger hotspot of highest concern, and without immediate humanitarian assistance, the risk is terrible. With recent attacks on UN aid convoys, can the Minister provide her latest assessment of the situation and the extent of aid blocking? How is she ensuring that UK aid—including the £120 million announced at the April Sudan conference—will reach those who need it, and that aid workers are protected?

More broadly, what new measures are the Government taking to compel the warring parties into a ceasefire, to allow more aid in and to facilitate deconfliction for its delivery in the meantime? How has the Minister supported Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference, and what is her assessment of the effectiveness of these processes? Despite the spending review, we are yet to  understand what the 0.3% figure means for bilateral aid, so will she confirm the bilateral spend for Sudan this year?

Sudan matters. It is not in the UK’s national interests for the crossing of red lines in this conflict to persist, to have the displacement of people on this scale, nor to see the further destabilisation of this region of Africa. \p Catherine West: The right hon. Lady asked about the last week’s ICC finding. We acknowledge the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s critical findings that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may have well been committed, and are continuing to be committed, in Darfur. This is an important milestone in the ICC’s investigation into crimes committed in Darfur, and the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and breaches are called out and investigated. The UK remains committed to securing accountability for those responsible for atrocity crimes. This includes reporting the fact-finding mission’s mandate and the ICC’s ongoing investigation.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the attack on El Fasher and the targeting of aid workers. That is an absolute disgrace and a clear violation of international law, and we condemn it. She asked what more we have been doing recently. We attended the important consultative group on Sudan in Brussels on 26 June, and contributed to discussions with the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy on Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, on his plans to convene proximity talks with the warring parties, including on protection issues.

Finally, the right hon. Lady raised the important question of the spending review. As I am sure she is aware, we have a lot of lessons to learn from last time the aid budget was reduced, because the National Audit Office criticised the way those reductions were made in-year, without consultation, and questioned whether that was value for money. Instead, the Government will take a long-term look at this, and have a glide principle over the three remaining years of this Parliament. \p Uma Kumaran: That this urgent question could have been relevant at any time in the past 20 years is a damning indictment of the failure of the international community. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) and I hosted Sudanese community voices alongside Médecins Sans Frontières, the British Medical Association and others, and we heard harrowing stories about what is happening on the ground. Medical centres and hospitals are becoming battlegrounds and, as ever, women and children are bearing the brunt of the devastation. The United Nations has called what is going on the “world’s largest humanitarian crisis”. There are credible allegations of genocide, backed by both the US and the UN, and there are well-documented cases of war crime. This is a war on civilians.

The UK, in its role as the UN penholder, must lead by example and convene international actors and leaders to urgent, concrete action. Will the Minister set out what urgent action she plans to take in the next week, particularly given that Parliament will not be sitting again until September, by which time many more lives will have been devastatingly lost? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend her for her important work in pulling together groups—in particular aid workers whose focus is on medical relief—and for her role on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am sure she shares with me the worry about the news of a cholera outbreak in the region. I thank her for her important work in that regard. She also impresses on the House the importance of the UK’s support to women and girls.

The Foreign Secretary visited the Sudan-Chad border in January to raise awareness of Sudan, speaking directly to refugees, including survivors who shared harrowing stories of sexual violence and torture, and in March, Lord Collins, the Africa Minister, chaired a UN Security Council briefing on committing to the prevention of violence against women and girls in Sudan, but my hon. Friend is quite right to say that this week, as the House comes towards its rising, we must do even more. I will undertake to share this particular dialogue in the House with the Minister for Africa, so he can redouble his efforts in the month of August to ensure that the UK is well represented in international discussions. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: The ongoing war in Sudan is the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe and the biggest since aid began. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, but I regret that in the past seven months there has been only one statement on Sudan from the Government.

Local and community-led emergency response rooms are central to the on-the-ground response. Will the Minister outline how the UK is increasing support to those ERRs? Since the London conference, what bilateral conversations have the Government had with regional actors and the US about Sudan? War crimes are being committed on an almost daily basis. The two principal warring parties oppose a democratic Sudan, so what are the Government doing to support Sudanese civilian groups and civil society fighting for the democratic future?

Since 2023, The New York Times has repeatedly reported that the United Arab Emirates is funnelling weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, and the UN’s expert panel on Sudan deemed those allegations credible. What are the Government doing to address the proliferation of outside weapons in Sudan, and to uphold and expand the arms embargo? How are they clamping down on the illicit international trade in Sudanese gold, which is financing this war? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the American judgment that chemical weapons are being used in Sudan? \p Catherine West: The hon. Lady quite rightly pushes us to say more in this House. There have been lots of questions from Members when the Foreign Secretary has been answering broader questions, such as on G7 or NATO meetings, so Members across the House have asked questions under the umbrella of international affairs and the Foreign Secretary has replied to them, but we can always do more.

As the hon. Lady is aware, we need to keep up the momentum from the London Sudan conference. She asks who we are working with. We are of course working with the African Union. This is, first and foremost, a  question of promoting leadership of African countries to deal with issues in Africa. The Foreign Secretary has redoubled his efforts as a well-respected Foreign Secretary within the African Union dialogues, and recently joined the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan in June, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate and think is a worthwhile forum for us to be in. As mentioned, the friends of Sudan group in Geneva will also advance the work to protect civilians.

The hon. Lady mentions the UAE. Our message to any partners who may have an element of involvement in the conflict is clear: we need to press for a peaceful solution. All those supporting behind the scenes need to come together in the spirit of the London Sudan conference and talk about a peaceful solution for all.

On the hon. Lady’s last question, which was about gold in Sudan, I shall have to write to her. \p Phil Brickell: In response to an urgent question in April, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) confirmed that the London Sudan conference included a commitment from the UK Government to provide a further £120 million of aid for 2025-26 to support 650,000 people, which the Minister referenced earlier. With that in mind, can the Minister today confirm to the House what progress has been made in the intervening few months to ensure that the additional aid reaches the most vulnerable people in Sudan fleeing conflict, sexual violence and famine? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend raises the most important point. It is not just about money; it is about access, our diplomatic heft and knocking heads together so we can get that aid through to the people most in need. He mentions the £120 million for this financial year. A portion of that uplift provides support to local responders, both through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund, which supports the emergency response rooms, and the Mercy Corps-led Cash Consortium of Sudan, which provides direct cash assistance to mutual aid groups on the ground. The reason for that is that there is often a de-banking situation in conflict zones—formal banking collapses. That is why it is so important that the UK is able to assist the smaller groups on the ground to get that vital aid in. \p Gavin Williamson: Such an enormous civilian price is being paid in Sudan, but one of the greatest horrors is the use of rape and sexual violence against women and children as a weapon of war—and it is being used systematically as a weapon of war. I appreciate that the Minister has limited options, but I urge her to look at every single way that we can be more robust and stronger, and really lead the charge to ensure that vital aid—not only to combat hunger but to help people who have been raped and who have suffered so much—is delivered as quickly as possible. Let us please lead the way. \p Catherine West: I thank the right hon. Member for his question. The UK funds support for the protection, prevention and care services responding to gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan,  and they provide emergency support to survivors. Longer-term UK programmes also work to tackle female genital mutilation, and to empower women and girls. \p Rachel Blake: I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) about the terrible and desperate suffering of women and children. I thank the Minister for her update, in which she highlighted the outcome of the London Sudan conference and the urgent need for access for aid. When I speak to my constituents from the Sudanese diaspora community, they talk about their desperate sadness in the conversations they have with their friends and family who are still in the region. Will the Minister update the House on the consular arrangements for the friends and family of my constituents? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on behalf of her constituents in Westminster and the City. I encourage her and her staff to use the MP hotline, because that is the best way of getting through in order to get consular advice and to reassure our communities in the diaspora of Sudan. \p Harriett Baldwin: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for securing this urgent question on the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. I welcome the leadership steps that the UK Government are taking, but will the Minister tell the House what conversations are being had with both the African Union and the United Nations about the possibility of surging peacekeepers into Sudan to protect civilians? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Lady for her leadership role in the previous Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan and as International Development Minister.

There are a number of partners; she has mentioned some of them. The participants at the London Sudan conference included Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, and of course the like-mindeds: Norway, Canada, the USA and Switzerland. It was a perfect moment and the hon. Lady asks how we can continue that. We will redouble our efforts to work with the multilaterals such as the UN and the League of Arab States. There is quite a lot on their agenda at the moment, but it is very important that Sudan is not brought down the agenda just because it is in Africa. That is a fear, which is why it is so good to see the reporting in the Financial Times, The Guardian, and many of our other mainstream newspapers, to keep it in the spotlight. We will ensure that we work bilaterally with the countries we work with in normal times, and on a multilateral level to maintain our leadership role. \p Melanie Ward: The humanitarian situation in Sudan is horrific, with the growing perpetration of atrocity crimes against civilians. This is part of a growing pattern of mass atrocity crimes being perpetrated across the world, but the UK Government’s strategy on prevention of and  response to mass atrocity crimes has not been updated since 2019. Does the Minister agree that it is time for a fresh approach to this vital issue? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend knows of what she speaks, with her role before she came to this place. I shall take that as an action from today’s dialogue. \p Julian Lewis: Will the Minister explain to the House what, in practical terms, the Security Council could do, even if all its members were neutral on the question of backing one side over the other? If two sides are determined to fight one another and neither is dependent on outside military assistance to pursue the conflict, is there anything practical that the Security Council could do, even if it was united and in agreement on the need for an intervention? \p Catherine West: The UN Security Council is not just about military intervention, in terms of the security; as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is also about the impact of the diplomatic solutions. As the penholder, the UK has the most important role to try to bring everybody together around the table, which is why we had the London Sudan conference. There were some who threw their hands up and said, “We haven’t achieved anything,” but I think the important thing was that we laid down a marker, and that we are now following up with other partners and being seen as leaders in the area. It is by using the UN Security Council leadership role that we will eventually get to a solution. However, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are a lot of fingers in the pie. \p Alex Sobel: What is happening in Sudan—in Darfur, in particular—is one of the world’s deepest and longest-running humanitarian crises. Unfortunately, we are seeing rising tensions and military action in neighbouring South Sudan, particularly in the Upper Nile region. The Ugandan army has recently entered South Sudan, and there is a real risk of regional conflict and civil war, which would create a much deeper humanitarian crisis across the whole region. What is the UK doing to de-escalate that potential conflict, such as talking to Uganda and South Sudan? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the longer the war lasts, the greater its ripple effect. We should give credit to countries like Egypt, Chad and South Sudan, alongside others nearby, for managing this crisis and for taking so many people in. There has also been aid from countries like the UK, but the impact within the region is devastating. I will certainly take back to the Minister for Africa my hon. Friend’s point about the impact on South Sudan and reply in writing with what we are going to do this month—not waiting until September, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) said. \p Brian Mathew: As a former aid worker and resident of Darfur, I feel deeply for the people of Sudan. Will the Minister say whether there are plans to increase the amount of spend for the emergency response rooms? They are clearly doing very valuable work at the moment. \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he did before coming to Parliament and his important support for so many countries; I have been in debates with him on Myanmar and others. It is important that we lay on the record that £120 million is a lot of money, and that we have to follow that money. As I explained before, de-banking sometimes occurs in certain contexts, which is why we need to have those relationships on the ground with the sorts of aid organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow spoke about, covering the situation as it is today and how to maintain those relationships. My personal view is that it is not always just about the impact of the budget; sometimes it is about the diplomatic work that goes on around the funding so that we can maximise that money. \p Rachael Maskell: The brutal violence being perpetrated against Sudanese civilians is only fuelled by external actors from the UAE, Egypt, Russia and beyond. Will the Minister ensure diplomatic interventions with each of those nations and report back to the House on the outcome of those dialogues? Will she also ensure that the UK leads on banning the use of mercenaries in areas of conflict? We have not signed a convention as the UK Government, and it is time that we led a new convention on the use of mercenaries. \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for her work as the chair of the APPG for Sudan and South Sudan. We have now heard from both the former chair, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and the current chair. I know that my hon. Friend has a Sudanese diaspora in her locality, too.

May I just emphasise that the UK is not protecting any country with an interest in this conflict? We have been very clear that we expect all countries to comply with existing UN sanctions regimes and the arms embargo, and we continue to work closely with partners at the UN Security Council to enforce them. We need to move on to the political resolution of the conflict. I also ask for my hon. Friend’s patience; I will fold the second part of her question into the challenge I had from my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on updating some of our policies and procedures that have not been updated since 2019. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers to all the questions and her strong words on our commitment. I believe those words will encourage us all, and hopefully thereby encourage our constituents. Sudan ranks fifth on the Open Doors world watch list for Christian persecution, with more than 100 churches and Christian buildings forcibly seized in the conflict, with the latest church destroyed just last week. Christians are afraid to practise their faith, and the recent murder of 300 people in North Kordofan has underlined the valid reason that they live in fear. How can the Government assist? More importantly, will the Government intervene and help the people of this region, who are being exterminated just because they are Christians? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his relentless work in this House on freedom of religion or belief. Of course, the region used to be so much more diverse, but the space for religious freedom has really  narrowed. He is quite right to challenge that. With his permission, I will share his thoughts with our freedom of religion or belief champion, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), so that we can work together on this issue and shine a spotlight on the lack of freedom for Christian communities in particular, but also for other minority communities in the Darfur region. \p John Slinger: I am sure all hon. Members will want to praise British diplomats for all they are doing on this difficult issue. The potential catastrophic loss of ever more civilian life—not merely in the armed conflict, but in the resulting humanitarian catastrophe—means that the conscience of the world must lead to action, first and foremost through diplomacy. Have the Government considered working with allies to ensure that all options remain on the table, given concepts like the responsibility to protect? Given that Sudan has previously seen a genocide in Darfur, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that the international community does not once again have to say, “If only we had acted more robustly,” or, “Never again”? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for his extensive work in civil society on these sorts of issues. The current position is for us to engage extensively through diplomatic means to encourage all parties to come to the table. We are very aware of the complexity of this particular conflict and the fact that it is not just two sides within the region, but a lot of other players. We are uniquely positioned with our role on the United Nations Security Council and with our other partners; for instance, we do a lot with the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. We are using our diplomatic efforts double time at the moment, but I do hear what my hon. Friend says. \p Ben Lake: Given that certain UN initiatives and efforts to address this humanitarian catastrophe have encountered a degree of reluctance, if not opposition, from states such as Russia, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are working closely with regional partners. Will she elaborate on the work that is being done to support countries such as Egypt and multilateral organisations like the African Union to address this humanitarian crisis and, if not to broker a ceasefire, to ensure the unblocking of humanitarian aid? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for his long-standing interest in development. I know that he will be pleased to hear that the participants with whom we worked at the London conference continue to be our partners in this endeavour. They include Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. Within my own brief as the Indo-Pacific Minister, I am able to talk about terrible conflicts such as those in Sudan and Myanmar with like-minded people, including with those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which also cares deeply about their brothers in Sudan and Myanmar. We must redouble our efforts to have on our agenda in future diplomatic interventions those terrible ongoing conflicts that are not enjoying the spotlight of public attention. \p Christopher Bloore: I thank the Minister for her responses so far. She will be aware of the indiscriminate aerial bombardments in the conflict and the failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets. Are the Government considering further targeted sanctions on those leaders responsible for, or accused of, atrocities and war crimes in the area? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. Since the outbreak of the conflict in 2023, the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the parties involved in the conflict. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the UK has also sanctioned two generals of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces for their crimes against civilians in November 2024. He is also right to emphasise the use of drones in this particular conflict and how difficult it is for civilians to know how to shield themselves against them. This new method of war is very much at the top of our agenda when we speak with like-minded people. \p Ayoub Khan: May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for keeping the plight of the Sudanese at the forefront of our thoughts. We often hear the adage, “out of sight, out of mind”, and, unfortunately, the conflict in Sudan does not engage the mainstream media in the way that it should. We know about the recent harrowing events in North Kordofan, where 300 civilians, including children and pregnant women, were massacred. We know that, historically, there have been international peacekeeping troops on the ground. Will the Minister explore that opportunity with the relevant nations? Does she believe that that is something that can be considered? \p Catherine West: Just last month, we joined the UN-EU consultative group on Sudan for the first time, alongside our partners from the US, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the African Union and the League of Arab States. That was at the top of the agenda. Our role at the moment is very much focused on being the penholder at the UN, but all channels are open and we are listening to all views. The important thing is that we try to get round the table again and maintain the momentum that we had for that brief moment at the London conference. \p Jonathan Pearce: With 150,000 men, women and children dead, 13 million people displaced, attacks on humanitarian workers, and reports of ethnic cleansing and genocide, Sudan is undoubtedly the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today, yet almost nobody knows about it. We have had no marches on the streets, comparatively little media attention, and very few statements and urgent questions in the House. Will the Minister set out what more the Government can do to raise awareness of the desperate need to address this conflict? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for his spotlight on this issue. The UK condemns the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities being committed against civilians in Sudan: the escalation of violence;  the killing of civilians; the sexual assault of women; and the restriction of humanitarian access. That is why the Foreign Secretary visited the Sudan-Chad border to raise awareness of the conflict in Sudan and its impact on neighbouring countries. He spoke directly to Sudanese refugees, including to survivors, who shared harrowing stories of sexual violence and torture. The Minister for Africa, for whom this is probably the highest priority area, hosted an event with his Dutch and Swiss counterparts to discuss the alarming rates of conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan and the inadequacy of current responses, and we will redouble our efforts following this urgent question to ensure that we follow that up. \p Gregory Campbell: The unfolding scenario in Sudan almost defies description. The Minister has quite rightly spoken about the importance of accessibility. Does she agree that, for accessibility to work in terms of aid, resources and assistance, there needs to be a comprehensive international approach in order even to offer the prospect of hope and delivery within the next few months? \p Catherine West: The hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about the importance not just of our bilateral meetings, but of working at that multilateral level. At the same time, we need to provide support in that important area of gathering facts as we go along, because the fog of war can prevent that. Let me give one example. The UK provided £989,000 to the Sudan Witness project started by the Centre of Information Resilience, which investigates attacks against civilians and works with Sudanese civil society organisations as well as the United Nations fact-finding mission to support evidence gathering and accountability, so that, one day, justice will be served. \p Joe Morris: I thank the Minister for her answers today, and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for bringing this urgent question to the House. The events in Sudan are undoubtedly an ongoing stain on the conscience of the global community. I am deeply concerned about increasing the accountability of those who are complicit or guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity. Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), can the Minister assure me and my constituents that she will leave no stone unturned in making sure that people face justice for the things that they have either enabled or taken part in? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is right to say that the reports coming out of Darfur are horrifying. Some of the violence has shown the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and may amount to crimes against humanity. The Foreign Secretary heard this at first hand from survivors when he was in Adre in January. Irrespective of any determinations in the International Criminal Court, we know that we will strongly and always support its active investigation into the situation in Darfur, including allegations of crimes committed since April 2023, and that is why the UK has provided technical support in this regard. \p Emma Reynolds: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall update the House on the content of the Leeds reforms.

The reforms encompass the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which is our 10-year plan for financial services. This plan will make the UK the global centre of choice for financial services investment by 2035, with all parts of the country benefiting from its success, building on our thriving regional financial services clusters around the country.

The financial services sector is one of this country’s largest and most productive sectors. It is worth 9% of total economic output and provides 1.2 million jobs across the UK’s nations and regions. Our strategy will unleash the potential of the sector to catalyse growth, enterprise and opportunity in the rest of the economy. That will mean that working people will get better returns on their savings, that home ownership will be unlocked for tens of thousands more people, and that more businesses will get access to the capital that they need to grow.

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade recently presented to this House our modern industrial strategy in which financial services was identified as one of the key eight growth driving sectors on which the Government will focus. This builds on the successes of our first year in office, which I am proud to highlight: the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year; four interest rate cuts; faster wage growth in the past 10 months than the previous 10 years of the last Government; the FTSE100 yesterday at a record high; and business confidence at its highest in nine years. [Interruption.] I will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who presided over inflation at 11% and debt rising year after year.

Our vision is of an active state working in partnership with business, and the Leeds reforms were co-designed with industry. The Chancellor and I undertook extensive engagement in its preparation, and I was pleased to see financial services firms across the country and the Confederation of Business Industry welcome our reforms publicly. The reforms reintroduce informed risk taking into our financial services system to deliver prosperity for working people. We will always ensure that financial stability is a prerequisite for economic growth, and we continue to uphold our commitment to the high international standards that underpin the resilience of the global financial system.

I will briefly set out the details of our package to the House. First, the Government are delivering a competitive regulatory environment to attract investment and drive growth. We have set out plans to deliver the most significant reform to the Financial Ombudsman Service since its inception, ensuring that it no longer acts as a quasi-regulator and returning it to its original purpose as an independent, impartial dispute resolution service for complaints between consumers and financial services firms.

We are also streamlining the senior managers and certification regime to reduce the burdens imposed on firms by 50% and to reduce approval times. We have  tasked the Financial Conduct Authority to report back by September on how it plans to address concerns about the application of the consumer duty for firms primarily engaged in wholesale activity.

Secondly, our reforms unlock capital for investment into our infrastructure and businesses. We are doing this by supporting the Bank of England’s changes to MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—and by confirming our approach to Basel 3.1, implementing lower capital requirements for domestically focused banks from January 2027 while preserving flexibility in our approach for international banks to ensure that the UK remains competitive and aligned with international standards.

We are also committing to meaningful reform to ringfencing, while maintaining the aspects of the regime that support financial stability and protect customer deposits. We welcome the Financial Policy Committee’s review of the overall bank capital levels needed for UK financial stability and its decision to ease its loan-to-income restriction on mortgage lending. I am delighted that this decision will enable up to 36,000 additional first-time buyers to access mortgages in the first year.

Thirdly, we are making the UK the location of choice for fintechs to start up, scale and list, and we want the wider financial services sector to embrace innovation too. The FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority will launch a scale-up unit to ensure that fast-growing businesses have the support they need to grow. The regulators will also introduce a new streamlined authorisation regime that will enable innovative firms to start operating while they await full approval. We are modernising and future-proofing the regulatory framework for payments and e-money, including stablecoin, and we are establishing a new model to deliver next-generation retail payments infrastructure.

Fourthly, we are seizing opportunities in key areas of UK leadership, from speciality insurance and asset management to sustainable finance. Our insurance sector has been world-leading for centuries, and we are committed to staying at the front of the pack by creating a new captive insurance framework and holding an industry showcase event later this year to sell the sector globally. We are also future-proofing the regulatory regime for our asset management sector, which is the second largest in the world, and we will publish draft legislation on that early next year.

The UK is already a leading global hub for sustainable finance. We have set out plans for a stable regulatory framework, and we are giving industry clarity by deciding not to pursue a green taxonomy and by focusing instead on ambitious policies that support investors to invest in the transition. I look forward to continuing to work with Lord Alok Sharma and the Transition Finance Council, which he chairs, to make the UK the leading international hub for raising transition finance.

Fifthly, we want to go further in building a new retail investment culture and boosting our capital markets’ competitiveness. We have taken great strides to reform our pensions system, led by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), so that people can have better savings in retirement. We want savers to get the best returns on their savings. For too many their money is not working hard enough, and for too long advice on  investments has been the preserve of only the wealthiest in society. To address this, the Chancellor has announced the biggest reform of the financial advice and guidance landscape in more than a decade and the introduction of targeted support in time for the new tax year. The Chancellor and I welcome the steps being taken by industry to help consumers engage with investing. I particularly thank Chris Cummings of the Investment Association for the work he is leading on that.

We are also considering reforming the individual savings account system to ensure better outcomes for both savers and the UK economy. We are allowing long-term asset funds to be held in stocks and shares ISAs next year. This will allow more individuals to invest in assets that will support the UK’s success while seeing better returns on their savings. To ensure that our capital markets support British business, we are announcing a new listings taskforce with the Office for Investment to attract world-leading businesses towards initial public offering in the UK. We are publishing a wholesale financial markets digital strategy to harness innovation as well as our ambitious design for the digital gilt instrument pilot.

Finally, we are taking steps to enhance the UK’s leadership in financial services, ensuring that the UK remains the most open and connected financial centre in the world. We will launch a concierge service—the Office for Investment: Financial Services—to attract international financial services firms to invest in the UK and grow their business. We are further facilitating cross-border activity with the publication of guidance on our overseas recognition regimes and a memorandum of understanding with UK regulators, a copy of which I will place in the Library in both Houses.

Through these steps, the Government have placed financial services at the heart of our growth mission. Our 10-year strategy is ambitious, includes the most far-reaching reforms to financial services for a decade, and will unleash the fantastic potential of our world-leading financial services sector. We are backing British businesses, unlocking home ownership for tens of thousands of people across the country, supporting savers to get better returns, and investing in our shared future. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Economic Secretary. \p Mark Garnier: I am very grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. There is much in these Leeds reforms—many of which were formerly known as the Edinburgh reforms—that can be welcomed, and some of the details were laid out by the Chancellor in her Mansion House speech last night.

The Conservatives will always support reforms to our financial sector that ensure that the City of London remains a global powerhouse, but the Chancellor’s rhetoric last night about growth and stability obscures the truth of this Government’s record of delivery. Inflation is now at 3.6%—the highest in the G7—and growth has all but stalled. Despite yesterday’s fanfare for reform, the reality is that having run short on other ideas, the Government are now forced to turn once again to the  City of London for inspiration—a last throw of the dice, hoping that it will provide an engine for the growth that their policies are stifling.

Last night the Chancellor described her Government as a “beacon of stability”, but let us not forget the actual legacy that was handed over to her. We enjoyed near record levels of employment. Unemployment was at historic lows, and inflation was under control. That is the stable foundation on which this Government were handed the keys, yet they now preside over instability. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the OECD and the Bank of England have all sounded the alarm that our growth prospects have collapsed. The Government claim to be cutting red tape for industry, but let us remember that their plan to make work pay would in fact burden employers with over 70 new regulations, reminiscent of the 1970s.

The Chancellor’s talk of unleashing the power of the City comes even as her party threatens to smother businesses in paperwork and expense. When it comes to proposals for financial services, the Conservatives welcome much that gives the sector confidence and clarity, but warm words must be matched by careful delivery. On reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service, there is agreement that it should return to its impartial roots as a fast and effective dispute resolution service, not a quasi-regulator, but so many business and consumers are awaiting clarity, so can the Minister confirm whether these changes will limit the FOS’s power to make backdated legal determinations, and what impact will the reforms have on ongoing legal proceedings, such as the crucial car finance case before the Supreme Court?

Streamlining the approach of the FCA and the PRA may remove unnecessary friction, but we must ensure that this does not become window dressing while critical challenges remain. The FCA and the PRA must accept that stability in the markets is not the only way to deliver growth. Both their objectives must be aligned and equally ambitious in their drive for reform.

The Chancellor trumpeted reforms to ISAs, including new rules for long-term asset funds, which we welcome if that broadens access to higher-return assets for ordinary savers, but there is still no certainty on the future of the cash ISA. Without clarity, the Government risk undermining their own ambition to promote home ownership and inclusive investment, which again was trumpeted by the Chancellor during her Mansion House speech last night.

On capital investment policy, we welcome MREL reform, which was a change I championed during the recent passage of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025. This will help challenger banks to compete and expand lending.

We cautiously welcome the Government’s review of ringfencing rules, but will they confirm that all options are being considered, including alignment with the US and the EU, which, as the Minister knows, never implemented ringfencing rules?

More broadly, the history of the last Labour Government reminds us that good intentions are never enough. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, introduced by the then Chancellor, along with the tripartite system, was well conceived but badly implemented, contributing to the events of the 2008 financial crisis. It falls to this Government now to demonstrate that they will not repeat those mistakes.

Finally, at Mansion House last night the Chancellor missed a crucial opportunity to be straight with the British people and rule out further tax rises. Will the Minister guarantee that working families and businesses will not face more tax increases? Will she rule out any further surprise raids on the British taxpayer?

Britain’s financial services sector has always thrived when reforms are clear. The test of these reforms will come when the full details emerge, but ultimately growth will come only when the Chancellor realises that hard-working people and businesses across the country are the real engines of economic growth. \p Emma Reynolds: Well, half of that was all right, I suppose. I do want to start constructively and thank the hon. Member for his welcome for some of the reforms. I will answer some of his specific questions before I come to the wider points.

On the Financial Ombudsman Service, we have set out in great detail what we will do. As he will be aware, some of the changes require primary legislation. We are proposing an absolute time limit of 10 years, but with discretion for the FCA to give longer periods in the case of products with a longer lifetime. I cannot comment on the ongoing car finance issue, which as he knows is working its way through the courts.

The hon. Member talked about the regulators’ different objectives. We have been very clear with the regulators that we expect them to embed their secondary objective to facilitate economic growth and competitiveness while obviously complying with their other objectives. He will see that in the remit letters that the Chancellor sent to the regulators at the last Mansion House speech last November.

On ISAs, I welcome what the hon. Member said about long-term asset funds, which we think will unlock great opportunities for savers. We continue to consider reform to ISAs. We would like to ensure that more people have the opportunity and confidence to invest, which is why we hope that targeted support, which will be introduced by firms by the end of this tax year—we have worked at pace on this—will really shift the dial and give people that confidence to invest.

I think the hon. Member said he was in favour of what we are doing on MREL, and I know that he agreed with the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act, which we put through the House and is coming into force today. I thank him for his support on that.

On ringfencing, we have detailed which areas we will look at. I am happy to write to him further on that, but one area, for example, is sharing resources across the ringfenced and non-ringfenced parts of banks. We want to ensure that we strike the right balance between growth and stability.

I turn to the hon. Member’s points about economic stability. I will take no lessons from the Conservatives—I hate to say it. We had inflation at 11%, people paying extremely high mortgage rates and debt rising year after year. The only thing that was stable under their Government was wages, which were flatlining. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee. \p Meg Hillier: I thank the Minister for the statement and look forward to the Treasury Committee talking to—or   interrogating—her, and indeed the Chancellor, about the detail as it emerges. Since the election, one of the things the Government have been talking about, leading on from the previous Government, is the secondary remit letters to the regulators about encouraging growth as a secondary objective. Can she tell us when the Government will be clear about their own appetite for risk in the sector so that both firms and the regulators know how far the Government will be prepared to go? She and I know from our experience in this place that if too many consumers suffer under any changes, this place is where that will be raised, and then there is a tendency for the Government to turn around and say, “Well, you went too far.” For the sake of the sector, the regulator and our constituents, will she tell us—or will she tell us when she can—where the Government’s line on risk will fall? \p Emma Reynolds: I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question. I am happy to talk to the Committee about that in more detail. What I will say is that the Leeds reforms regulate for growth instead of seeking to eliminate risk from the system altogether. We know that in order to get greater returns, there is a need to take informed risk. The reforms will enable firms and consumers to take informed risks. But we will always support the regulators and legislate in a way that protects consumers from bad practices and bad actors. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: There is much to welcome in the statement. I hope that it sends a strong signal to the fintech sector and sustainable finance that UK plc is open for business, but it is important to get the balance right between growth and risk.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of a scale-up unit. Will it have a mandate to look at liquidity and valuation, which are two of the challenges that prevent British start-ups from scaling up here at home?

On the retail investment culture, we welcome plans to reform financial advice and guidance and to launch a national advertising campaign. We believe that we should trust people to weigh up the risk and rewards of investment, if they are properly informed. But we also know that money habits are formed at a young age. Will the Minister advise whether the Government have any plans to introduce financial literacy as part of the school curriculum—indeed, from cradle to grave? Will the Government confirm when they will bring forward any reforms at all to cash ISAs? The uncertainty around the issue is undermining their own goal of incentivising more investment.

On mortgages, many renters have been crowded out of getting on to the housing ladder, so this announcement will sound exciting to them, but what reassurance can the Minister provide that this additional lending will not result in boom and bust? With inflation jumping today, how many of those up to 36,000 first-time homeowners will realistically get on the housing ladder in the next year?

We welcome the streamlining of checks on senior managers, but will the Government confirm that those changes will not expose financial firms and their customers  to greater risk? If the Government want a step change in economic growth, this is a start, but they must go further and faster by having a better trading deal with the EU. \p Emma Reynolds: We have a very good deal with the EU, which we agreed in May this year and will continue to build on. I was pleased to have invited the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Maria Luís Albuquerque, who was at the dinner last night at the Mansion House. I will try to get through all the hon. Member’s questions.

On liquidity and valuations, I point out that we have some of the deepest capital markets in the world. Last year, the amount of equity capital raised in London was larger than in the next three European exchanges put together. However, I recognise the issues she talked about.

On the advertising campaign, Chris Cummings of the Investment Association is leading the secretariat. He will also be looking at risk warnings. That is not to say there should not be risk warnings, but that there should be a balance in risk warnings to ensure that warnings are also informing people of the benefits of investing over the long term.

The hon. Member rightly talked about the importance of financial education and capability. We will put forward suggestions on that in the financial inclusion strategy, which we will publish in the autumn. However, as this is a cross-Government effort, I reassure her that I am speaking and meeting actively with the Minister for School Standards so that we are aligned with the Department for Education’s curriculum review.

The hon. Member asked about mortgages. May I reassure her? Obviously, we have had extensive regulations since the global financial crash and we are not going back to the bad old days when there were no verification checks on affordability and 125% mortgages. But the system we have got means that people on modest incomes are unable to get on the housing ladder. Nationwide has said that because of the Bank of England’s recent decision, it will be able to help an additional 10,000 people a year with its helping hand mortgage to fulfil their dream of home ownership. I think that is a great step forward and will mean that people across the country, like many in this House, can benefit from the security of home ownership, and particularly those on modest incomes and in generations that are being deprived of such opportunities. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee. \p John Grady: The reforms are targeted at getting greater investment into British infrastructure and cutting red tape. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a little bit rum for Opposition parties to criticise our Government for introducing red tape when they voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which creates projects that people can invest in and provides houses, which are a key restraint on house price inflation? \p Emma Reynolds: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We are intent on building the 1.5 million homes that we promised at the election. I remind the chuntering hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench that even before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the OBR scored the first stage of the planning reforms as the largest increase in GDP by the end of the scorecard of any non-fiscal lever in its history. \p Harriett Baldwin: The Economic Secretary may want to have a look at Hansard and make sure she got the right soundbite on the record about the 10 months of wage growth and the comparison. My understanding is that wage growth was indeed slow after the financial crash. We tried to compensate for that by increasing personal allowances, but wage growth has bounced back since the pandemic. She may want to correct the record if that is the case.

On the reforms, which have migrated from Edinburgh down to Leeds, the Treasury Committee will scrutinise the implementation. Is it her vision that they should be implemented over the next year, before the next Mansion House speech, rather than on the 10-year basis of the strategy as she outlined? \p Emma Reynolds: I refer the hon. Lady to page 63 of the strategy, which is very useful. It sets out an ambitious timeline for implementing the reforms that the Chancellor set out at the Mansion House last night and in Leeds yesterday morning, and shows her that we have already taken action to implement some of the decisions we took in November last year, such as introducing the private intermittent securities and capital exchange system. PISCES is a new private intermittent securities market that is open for business, and for which we legislated in May. That demonstrates how we are working at pace. Other things will take a little longer, and her extensive experience in this place and in government means that she will understand that some of those things require primary legislation. However, she will see through the two-page summary at the back of the strategy how we plan to implement the reforms at pace to unleash the potential of the financial services sector. \p Preet Kaur Gill: Too many of my constituents are trapped in the rental market, paying off someone else’s mortgage instead of saving for a home of their own. Average rents in Birmingham have now passed £1,000 a month for the first time, driven sharply upwards since the mini-Budget. I strongly welcome the Chancellor’s Leeds reforms, which will help 36,000 first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. Will the Minister say more about what the Government are doing to boost housing supply so that home ownership can become a reality for more people in cities such as mine? \p Emma Reynolds: As was said previously, the package that we announced yesterday, as well as the announcement by the Bank of England and the FCA’s discussion paper, go to the heart of making sure that we have the right balance between ensuring people have affordable mortgage products and ensuring that those products are accessible to more people up and down the country. As she will know—I am sure that she is referring to this—the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and some of the other planning reforms that we set forward are some  of the most ambitious for a generation. They will unlock the potential for those homes to be built so that we can get more and more first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call a Treasury Committee member, John Glen. \p John Glen: I warmly welcome the Leeds reforms; they build on many of the things that were done under the previous Administration and I acknowledge the consumer-facing changes on mortgages and ISAs and the aspiration to get more people investing. Those are positive things.

I will just say two things. First, on the listing review, we did one about four years ago and it is all just about implemented. I urge the Minister to look at culture and fiscal issues as much as at regulatory issues. Secondly, on the PRA and the scale of ambition on that side of the regulatory framework, in conversations with senior leaders at Mansion House last night, it was felt that the FCA’s level of ambition is high but that there must be wariness about a constant shifting of the goalposts and a lack of real change, particularly on the internal rating base and how banks can get their regulatory capital treated differently more quickly. It is taking too long and that needs to change urgently. \p Emma Reynolds: I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we have not announced a listing review; we have announced a listings taskforce—[Interruption.] It is different, if hon. Members will let me explain. It is a joint piece of work between the Office for Investment, His Majesty’s Treasury and other Government Departments to make sure that we attract the best and brightest companies to list here in the UK. He is correct, though: many reforms were undertaken by his Government on listings, taking forward the Jonathan Hill and Mark Austin reviews, and we welcomed and supported those.

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that yesterday the FCA published its final prospectus rules. Of course, we have to get the regulatory side of the equation right, but he is correct that there are other factors at play, which we are looking at. On the FCA and the PRA, all I will say to reassure him is that, as he knows, I hold the relationship with both those regulators as the Economic Secretary. We will continue to push them to be ambitious in supporting our growth agenda. \p Clive Lewis: I just want to confirm that my name is Clive, not Cassandra, Lewis—and yet, I feel like the Trojan princess, forever warning of things that will go wrong but being ignored. Will the Minister provide reassurance, given that the Bank of England has repeatedly warned that loosening mortgage lending standards and allowing more people to borrow larger sums relative to their income can push up house prices and increase financial instability? I appreciate that these are not the same deregulations that took place before the 2008 crash, but given the state of the global economy, surely she will understand that many of us on the Government Benches are cautious about deregulating at a time of such instability. I understand that we want to get more people on the housing ladder and to increase growth, but there is a risk. I wonder whether that risk has been duly appreciated. \p Emma Reynolds: I reassure my hon. Friend that our agenda is to streamline regulation and make it more proportionate, and that there remain firm guardrails and affordability checks for mortgage providers. At the moment, the level of repossessions is very low and banks and other mortgage providers do all they can to avoid repossessing people’s homes. As I said before, we will not go back to the bad old days of 125% mortgages and no verification of affordability. This is about rebalancing the system to make sure that more people can afford to buy their own home, but it is also about striking the right balance between ensuring that we take more informed risk while ensuring financial stability. He is right to ask the question. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call a Treasury Committee member, Bobby Dean. \p Bobby Dean: The Chancellor announced quite a list of reforms yesterday. I note that many were on the shopping list of industry, so the Committee will examine them closely to make sure they also work for the consumer and for the long-term stability of the economy. One change in particular, on ringfencing, will worry those with strong memories of the 2008 financial crash. The shadow Economic Secretary indicated that perhaps we need to look at removing the ringfencing entirely. That would be a big step backwards. These reforms were driven by the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, and the idea was to separate everyday customer deposits from the risks of investment banking. Will the Minister give us assurances that the hard-earned savings of families across the country will not be put at risk by the speculative activity of people playing with other people’s money? \p Emma Reynolds: It is always a great pleasure to come and give evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. I reassure him that the Government are upholding the ringfencing regime. We must strike the right balance between protecting financial stability and safeguarding depositors. Equally, we think that there are some flexibilities that should be explored within the ringfencing regime that will allow further growth and further capital to be deployed in the real economy. \p Callum Anderson: I thank the Minister for her statement and commend the work that she and the Chancellor have done on the wider Leeds reforms. I want to pick up on the forthcoming campaign to promote retail investment, which has the potential to reshape public understanding of risk, reward and financial planning. The problem with many similar campaigns is that they have failed to reach the people who most need them, so can the Minister provide a bit more detail about how the Treasury intends to work with both the financial services industry and civil society to ensure that the campaign delivers measurable benefits and improvements in financial capability across the whole population? \p Emma Reynolds: My hon. Friend is a great campaigner on this issue, and he is absolutely right: this is not an easy nut to crack. We will work closely with the industry-led campaign. We need to give people who want to invest and save for the longer term the confidence to consider whether they can secure better returns through investing, rather than just holding large amounts—if they have those large amounts—of money in cash. \p Julian Lewis: Whenever I listen to the excellent Times Radio and other commercial broadcasters, I am always favourably impressed by the fact that at the end of every positive advertisement for a financial product, three words are said: “capital at risk”. Can the Minister assure the House that in the review of risk warnings that will be undertaken, that fundamental red flag, at the end of people pushing us to invest our money in some grand and profitable enterprise, will not be left out? \p Emma Reynolds: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not suggesting getting rid of risk warnings. I think that is what he was asking me most directly. One of the investment platforms did some research into the wording of risk warnings, and he will probably know that there is quite a gender gap. If we look at the figures from the Financial Conduct Authority’s financial lives survey, we see that more men have the confidence to invest than women, for example. There are other demographic factors, too. We want to give people the option and the confidence to invest, but of course there will always be risk warnings. However, there is also a risk if someone holds all their savings in cash over the long term, due to inflation. \p Chi Onwurah: The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into regional innovation and growth has repeatedly heard that access to capital outside London and the south-east is the biggest barrier to start-ups scaling up and delivering growth and jobs. The reforms that the Minister has set out to reintroduce informed risk taking, which I am sure will be prudently implemented, should realise capital to catalyse growth. Can she say a little about how this will deliver more capital investment into the productive economy of the north-east? \p Emma Reynolds: I might not be able to give my hon. Friend the specifics about her region right now, but I will say that my colleague the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), has secured an ambitious industry-led accord—the Mansion House accord—that commits 17 pension funds, representing 90% of active defined-contribution savers, to invest 10% of their funds in private assets, half of which are to be in the UK. They will be on the hunt for good firms that could be successful in the future and that need capital to start up and scale up. We are also working closely with the British Business Bank on these issues, as my hon. Friend will know. \p Rupert Lowe: After 20 years in the City of London, over the last year I have had to endure a stream of what I would call financially illiterate verbal baby food. Today I hear the Chancellor talk about regulating for growth. You do not regulate for growth; you deregulate for growth. The genesis of our problems are the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, which sprung from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This was a Labour Act that created the Financial Services Authority, which turned into the PRA and the FCA. Those two organisations have shut the City of London down. We are now a shadow of our former selves in terms of raising global capital, and I heard you say the opposite— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Please be seated; I am on my feet. You heard the Minister say that. You do not refer to the Minister as “you”. Please come to the question. \p Rupert Lowe: My question is this: is the Minister aware of the concept of buyer beware, or caveat emptor, which used to be the basis of financial regulation? It is very risky to force people into more and more high-risk investments as you hollow out our economy with higher taxes and regulation. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. You meant, “as the Minister hollows out”, not me. Minister—a swift response. \p Emma Reynolds: Well, what do I say to that? I think there is, with the exception of the hon. Member, cross-party support for the twin peaks financial services regulation that we have. Of course, we need proportionate regulation to ensure that there are protections in place for consumers. He seems to be suggesting that we get rid of the regulators altogether, which I think most Members of this House would be opposed to. I have heard of the concept of caveat emptor, and I am suitably patronised by him. \p Andrew Pakes: One of the first visits I undertook after the election was to my local branch of Nationwide, which for generations has been providing good financial advice and advice to first-time buyers in my seat, as have many other mutuals. In one of the previous periods of financial deregulation by the Conservative party, we saw a movement that led to the demutualisation of the building society movement, creating uncertainty for thousands upon thousands of potential homeowners and people looking for financial support. Can the Minister reassure the House today that the co-operative and mutual sector will remain absolutely essential to the everyday financial services that working people need? \p Emma Reynolds: Absolutely. This is something that the Chancellor and I—and indeed the Business Secretary and the Business Minister—are passionate about, and we are making sure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector. We have asked the financial services regulators to report by the end of the year on what more they can do to support the growth of the sector. We are supporting the industry-led Mutual and Co-operatives Business Council, which is chaired by the chair of Nationwide, Kevin Parry, and we have recently concluded a call for evidence on the credit union common bond, which is another form of mutual. We will be setting out our response on that issue in due course. \p Kieran Mullan: Given the news on inflation today, along with the ongoing increases in unemployment and the downgrading of growth forecasts, it is quite right that this Government are looking for other ways to stimulate growth. One of the reasons being put forward for these reforms is the poor rates of return on ordinary bank accounts and savings accounts, but what my constituents want are just decent rates of return on ordinary savings accounts. Martin Lewis and others have pointed out that that market remains stubbornly resistant to passing on interest rate savings and offering competitive rates. I understand why the Government want to encourage people to  invest in other types of savings, but what plans do they have to tackle the poor rates of return that people are getting from their ordinary savings and bank accounts? \p Emma Reynolds: I am engaging with Martin Lewis, who is a doughty champion of consumers across the country. I say to the hon. Member that, due to the consumer duty, banks and other providers have a duty to ensure that they deliver the best outcomes for their consumers, but I note what he has said. \p James Naish: I thank the Minister for her statement, and I note especially the new concierge service within the Office for Investment that will both court international development and act as a one-stop shop to promote the UK. What regional dimension might be considered within that for places such as the east midlands—the region for which I am an MP—where there is significant potential for jobs and investment? \p Emma Reynolds: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the concierge service will be working across the country. This is about ensuring that the UK has a single shop window for international firms looking to either set up or invest further in the UK. As we set out in the Leeds reforms, the benefits of that investment and of unleashing the potential of the financial services industry should be felt across the country, in the east midlands and beyond. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The grim truth is that people’s living standards in Wales have still not recovered from the 2008 crash, which resulted in a Labour Prime Minister bailing out the banks and the Tory austerity experiment, so why are the Government risking a repeat of the mistakes of the past when all the evidence shows—this is important—that growth will not trickle down from poorly regulated bankers? \p Emma Reynolds: I gently say to the right hon. Member that we are not talking about going back to 2007—we have come a long way since then. Of course, after the crash, financial services regulations and a new system of financial services regulation in terms of the twin peaks of the FCA and the PRA—conduct and prudential—were introduced. We are not talking about going back to then. We are not bringing back 125% mortgages, as I have repeatedly said. We are simply saying that we need to reassess where we are and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. We need to rebalance the system so that both consumers and firms can take informed risks to drive growth across the country. That will make people better off and give them the opportunity to secure better returns on their savings. I encourage her to look at the detail of this. We are looking to rebalance the system, not go back to where we were. \p Samantha Niblett: As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology and a mother to a 17-year-old daughter who turns 18 this year and is considering how she can best save for and secure her future, I welcome this news with real joy as we try to bring more wealth to more people. I suspect this joy is shared by Ayesha Ofori, the founder of Propelle, a platform that encourages women into retail investing, which can start with some very small  sums indeed; Nina Mohanty, who founded Bloom Money, which supports people from ethnic minority communities to build generational wealth through group savings and budgets; and Georgia Stewart, founder of Tumelo, which has a mission to bring shareholder democracy to the digital age, giving everybody a seat at the table, whether that is an institution managing billions or everyday savers. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s approach of encouraging investing should in turn give confidence to those who are considering investing in these female-founded fintech companies, so they can scale and reach more people to help them become wealthier and more secure? \p Emma Reynolds: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion of fintech. We already have a thriving fintech sector, which is the second largest in the world—second only to the US—and we are determined to ensure that those companies access the capital and the authorisations and licences that they need from the regulators. Obviously, that is a decision for the regulators, but it should be done at pace so that these companies can get off the ground and start to scale, providing the opportunities for retail investment and, critically, providing innovative products for consumers across the country. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for her statement. The No. 1 thing that my constituents raise with me is the soaring cost of the private rented sector. Does she agree that these reforms will help first-time buyers in Harlow get on the housing ladder? Working alongside the £39 billion of investment in social housing, that can only be good for my residents. \p Emma Reynolds: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We want to ensure that the dream of home ownership is expanded across the country, including to his constituency of Harlow. Because of the reforms we are taking forward, and there will be more to come, the estimate is that 36,000 new first-time buyers will be able to buy their homes in the first year of this reform being in place. \p Gregory Campbell: In her statement, the Economic Secretary was right when she alluded to the FTSE being at a record high yesterday, though many international indices, whether in the US, the far east or Europe, are also at record highs since the April low. She also alluded to the cash ISA problem. What will be done to instil confidence among the wider public who hold money and cash assets but are reluctant and fearful of investing, even in lower-risk collective investments that, over the longer term, would produce much better returns than cash ISAs, which are subject, as she rightly says, to inflation? \p Emma Reynolds: I thank the hon. Member for his thoughtful question. We are doing a number of things. First, we are working at pace with the FCA to ensure that targeted support is in place by the end of the tax year and in time for the new ISA season in April next year. We are looking at the risk warnings and at the industry-led campaign on advertising the opportunities of investing. We are doing all that we can. It is good that hon. Members on different sides of the House are supporting us.

Obviously, different people will be at different stages in their journey through life. People who are retired may not want to invest in the stock market. I can understand that, from their perspective, they need more readily available cash, but if people who are younger or middle aged—I do not know where I fall in those categories—[Interruption.] Thank you. If people can even put a small amount away, they can invest in their future. It concerned me recently when a report suggested that many people did not know that their pensions were invested in the stock market and that that is how they get better returns in their retirement. We need to run a huge campaign with the private sector to educate people about the opportunities and to give people the confidence to invest. At the end of the day, it will obviously be down to people about how they choose to invest. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I welcome the Leeds reforms today. Like many of the best things, they started in West Yorkshire—[Interruption.] I see Conservative Members are still chuntering from a sedentary position. The reforms underline the important point that financial services are not just the preserve of the City of London, but of communities around the country, including many of my Calder Valley constituents who work for Lloyds Bank. Does the Minister agree that one of the most important things we can do to grow the economy is to focus on things that this country does well, including our financial services? \p Emma Reynolds: That is absolutely right. We were at Lloyds Banking Group yesterday in Leeds, and Lloyds employs thousands of people in Leeds and the wider region. There are some great opportunities in not only the establishment firms, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) said,  some of these new firms outside of London that are growing and providing innovative products. I was recently in Scotland talking to a group of fintechs about the support they are getting to work closely with some of the banks in Scotland to drive further investment into fintechs. That collaboration between the more established players and new players is positive to see. \p Christopher Bloore: I commend the Minister for her statement. Listening to my neighbour on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), as charismatic as he is, he did not convince me that 11% inflation, a £200 increase in my mortgage payments and a revolving door of Prime Ministers and Chancellors is a record to be particularly proud of.

My question is about the 29 million people in this country who have deposits in low-yielding current accounts, while people who invested in the stock exchange over the last 10 years saw yields of 9%. How do we convince and educate those customers to give them the confidence to be able to reveal much better outcomes from their investments? \p Emma Reynolds: That is similar to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) asked. There has been lots of different research, but AJ Bell recently found that if people had put £100 a year into ISAs for the past 25 years, they would be better off if they invested in a stocks and shares ISA than a cash ISA, so it is perhaps about showing people that sort of evidence. Obviously, the stock market ebbs and flows and can fluctuate, but if people are saving for the longer term, they should certainly consider investing. The industry-led campaign will look at how we can advertise the benefits. Of course, there still will be risk warnings, but we need to ensure that we get the balance right between telling people that there are risks and telling them that there are great benefits of investing, too. \p David Simmonds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The NHS announced yesterday morning the closure of the Mount Vernon hospital minor injuries unit in my constituency, which also affects my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). The decision flies in the face of the 10-year plan for the NHS announced recently to this House. My letter of 24 April to the Secretary of State about the matter has gone completely unanswered. Given the impending recess, how can I place my concerns on the record and hold Ministers accountable for this action? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ replies to correspondence from hon. Members, but colleagues in all parts of the House are entitled to expect a timely response to their letters, especially from Ministers on constituency matters. He has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the Treasury Front Bench will have noticed his remarks and will pass that on forthwith. \p Zarah Sultana: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance regarding the accuracy of the official report in Hansard. In my speech on Wednesday 2 July 2025 during the debate on the prevention and suppression of terrorism, I said the words, “We are all Palestine Action.” The video and audio recordings clearly confirm that the full sentence was spoken before the Chair intervened. However, Hansard has omitted the final word of that sentence. I have been advised that this is due to a long-standing convention not to report words spoken after the Chair intervenes, but in this case the record omits words spoken before the Chair’s intervention. I am also aware of precedents, which I can provide, where Members’ final words immediately preceding or overlapping an intervention have been included to preserve the accuracy of the record. Despite that, Hansard has not only refused to amend the entry, but has since removed the sentence entirely.

That blatant attempt of censorship and rewriting the record is deeply concerning and undermines the integrity of the Official Report. Can you therefore advise me and   the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether there are formal mechanisms to challenge omissions of this kind, reinstate the accurate record and ensure that Hansard fulfils its duty to provide a full and accurate record of proceedings in this House? \p Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Member has now twice put her words on the record, no doubt. If she is not aware—and for colleagues across the House who may not be aware—Hansard has its own editorial policy. If she wishes to have her words corrected, she needs to take that up directly with Hansard. That is not a responsibility of the Chair. \p Richard Tice: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be most grateful for your advice, because during Prime Minister’s questions earlier today the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) misled the House— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We do not use language such as “misled the House” when talking about colleagues. The hon. Gentleman will have to check his words if he wishes to continue. \p Richard Tice: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen may have possibly inadvertently misled the House with regard to Lancashire county council and nursery funding. The reality is that, unfortunately, as a result, the Prime Minister gave an answer based on that possible inadvertent misinformation. The truth is that Lancashire county council is carrying out a statutory consultation on whether to follow the example of Labour-controlled councils such as Blackburn and Blackpool in having a small, modest processing fee. \p Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have already contacted the Member he referenced. If not, I have no doubt that he will do so forthwith. If only the Chair were responsible for the content of Members’ questions and answers, but unfortunately it is not. The hon. Gentleman has now put his words on the record and will no doubt get a response privately. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Richard Burgon, supported by Imran Hussain, presented   a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take steps to give effect in the United Kingdom to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice issued on 19 July 2024 entitled “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, including provision for sanctions and for other measures to give effect to that advisory opinion; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 288). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Danny Beales: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulator of managing agents; to make provision about the powers and duties of the independent regulator; to require managing agents to comply with a code of practice and to make provision about that code of practice; to make provision for a licensing scheme for managing agents; to make further provision about the regulation of managing agents; and for connected purposes.

Labour Governments past and present have been underpinned by a motivation to stand up for the voiceless and disempowered—those let down by broken systems—so that they can take control over their own circumstances. I present this Bill to the House because the failure to regulate managing agents has rendered leaseholders—ordinary hard-working people—voiceless, let down and disempowered.

This Government’s commitment to end the broken leasehold system is a welcome pledge for many, including leaseholders in places like my Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency. Many have long been held hostage by exploitative management companies. In this Bill, we have the opportunity to take a further step forward in rebalancing the system, improving management standards and empowering leaseholders to hold their managing agents to account.

The Bill would establish a new independent regulator of managing agents. It would require managing agents to have mandatory qualifications and to pass a fit and proper person test. The regulator would be empowered to impose continuing professional development requirements. That would be underpinned by a clear code of practice set in statute, of which leaseholders would have clear sight and knowledge. The Bill would provide legal obligations and create a mechanism for redress for concerned leaseholders. The regulator would have powers to enforce compliance against managing agents and, ultimately, to remove them from the register of regulated agents. This would all be funded by the firms and individuals that are regulated. Those are reasonable and sensible steps forward.

Colleagues across the House have highlighted the plight of constituents who fall victim to unregulated managing agents, laying bare the failures of the current system. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) for their support and advice on the Bill. In my constituency, I have been supporting residents living in Union Park in Cowley. The developer has walked away from that development, and the residents are being presented with a bill of £100,000 by the managing company, Ringley. Communal boilers have been left broken for two and a half years, and leaks under floorboards remain unfixed.

Although my team and I continue to work to support and advocate for those residents, the reality is that without a proper regulatory framework, managing companies like Ringley—which are appointed by freeholders—remain free to provide inadequate customer service, charge extortionate fees without justification and ignore residents. They seemingly serve vested interests,  not the leaseholders who pay their fees. I am proud to be a member of the Labour for leaseholders group, working with hon. Friends to advocate for leaseholders in our constituencies and put pressure on managing companies to do better. We need a clear and robust legislative and regulatory framework, such as the one suggested by Lord Best and proposed in this Bill.

Of course, the leasehold system is not new, but the challenges that it presents today require the Government to act. Without mandatory qualifications and regulatory oversight, leaseholders remain vulnerable to inconsistent service quality, opaque charges and a lack of recourse when things go wrong. Managing agents are responsible for a variety of complex and important areas, including health, fire and structural safety, building maintenance, major works projects, and handling building finances and insurance. In leasehold blocks, managing companies hold substantial sums of leaseholders’ hard-earned money. The current system—or lack thereof—not only allows but empowers unqualified and incompetent managing agents. The Bill is not about extending red tape for red tape’s sake; it is about protecting hard-working people and their money.

Let me be clear: I am not attempting to tarnish all managing agents with the same brush. I know that some leaseholders have had positive experiences. The Property Institute—the professional body representing 7,000 property managers and over 360 managing agent firms—seeks to deliver safe, secure and well-managed homes. Members of the TPI are required to obtain accreditation and follow a consumer charter that demands honesty, fairness, openness and transparency. However, when distressed leaseholders sit across from me at my advice surgeries, those are not the words they use to describe their managing companies.

I commend the TPI for its work to stand up for leaseholders, and I welcome the supportive role it has played in the Government’s consultation on leasehold reform. However, a voluntary accreditation system in place of regulation exposes serious failures in the current framework. Relying on good faith actors to seek accreditation voluntarily means, by definition, that bad faith managing companies continue to operate freely in this country. We cannot accept that. For every managing company failing in its duty, there are multiple leaseholders being ripped off. The facts are clear, and inaction is not an option.

Earlier this year, FirstPort had its TPI accreditation stripped due to breaches of membership rules. Yet just three months later, it was readmitted. I recently visited Sherleys Court, a retirement complex in Ruislip managed by FirstPort. I heard stories from residents who, after a lifetime of hard work, moved in expecting to enjoy the next chapter of their lives. Instead, they were met with extortionate service fees with little to no explanation or itemisation. Their serious concerns about how their money was being managed were falling on deaf ears, and their feedback on shoddy maintenance work was once again ignored.

The story of the St Andrew’s Park development in Uxbridge—which is also managed by FirstPort—is just as dire. Residents report flooding, damp and mould issues that are not remedied. I recently conducted a  survey of residents; a staggering 50% of respondents said that they had not received a response from FirstPort following attempts to communicate with the company. If I went to those residents and told them that, in just three months, their managing company had lost and then regained accreditation, I am sure they would question what had actually changed, and they would rightly ask what process had led to that decision.

The readmission of FirstPort lays bare the limitations of the current system and the urgent need for a clear regulatory framework to define and enforce the standards expected of all managing agents. The Bill will introduce an independent property regulator, grant licences to agents based on checks, including the fulfilment of legal obligations, and mandate qualifications to ensure minimum competency standards for agents and property managers. Without those provisions, leaseholders and the sector as a whole bear the financial burden of a lack of regulation. Research by the TPI shows that introducing an independent regulator would be largely cost-neutral, with the benefits of improved professionalism, accountability and consumer confidence offsetting any additional administrative costs.

There is a significant cost of inaction: a human cost. Too many people have been ripped off for far too long, but after years that have been financially difficult for so many, this Government have a drive to make people better off and feel listened to, and when it comes to the plight of leaseholders, this Bill is a necessary step in doing just that.

Since this Government were formed, we have rightly heard a lot about the housing crisis and how it is our responsibility to fix it. The crisis does not begin and end with bricks and mortar, although building 1.5 million homes is an absolute imperative. It also comes down to a deeper concept: security in our homes, for those in the private rented sector and in social housing, and for homeowners too. This Bill can help towards delivering security for leaseholders, who for far too long have been left in a cripplingly insecure and exploitative situation. The total failings of the leasehold system extend beyond that which can be fixed by one piece of legislation, but the Bill will be a vital step forward in the Government’s mission to deliver justice for all leaseholders.

They say that your home is your castle, but for too long leaseholders have often felt that their home is a prison. They feel under attack by their management companies—the companies that are there to serve and protect them, and to whom they pay a significant sum in management fees for the pleasure. With this Bill, we can build defences through a proper regulatory framework, and by ensuring that companies are properly qualified and an accountability mechanism clearly exists. Those measures are all desperately needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Danny Beales, Joe Powell, Nesil Caliskan, Chris Bloore, Chris Curtis, Dr Rupa Huq, Sarah Russell, Rachel Blake, Andrew Cooper, James Naish, Daniel Francis and Cat Eccles present the Bill.

Danny Beales accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 287). \p Sarah Sackman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a pivotal step in the evolution of our legal system—one that ensures that the law remains relevant and pre-eminent in the digital age. As we set out in our plan for change, this Government are fully committed to providing investors and businesses with stability and certainty. This Bill will help to provide that certainty for people and businesses who own and transact with digital assets. This will help drive economic growth by encouraging innovation, attracting investment and reinforcing the UK’s position as a global hub for digital finances and technology. \p Christopher Vince: Does the Minister agree with me that although the Bill is small, it is very much mighty? It is important that we get the Bill on the statute book because we want this country to be ahead of the game on these issues. \p Sarah Sackman: My hon. Friend is right. We want the UK to remain the pre-eminent jurisdiction of choice for legal services, as it currently is. This evolution of our law will enable it to remain a global hub for digital finance and tech. Overall it is a Bill that reflects our legal heritage, embraces technological innovation and prepares our nation for the future.

To appreciate the significance of the Bill, we must begin with the foundations of property law in England and Wales. For centuries, our legal system has categorised personal property as two distinct types: first, things in possession—tangible items that can be physically held or possessed, such as a book, jewellery or gold; and secondly, things in action—intangible rights that can only be claimed or enforced through legal action, such as debts, shares or contractual rights. These categories have served us well for hundreds of years, providing clarity in ownership and facilitating commerce. They have helped to create legal certainty in matters ranging from succession and insolvency to trust structures and collateral arrangements.

The digital revolution introduced a new class of assets—digital assets—that do not fit neatly into either of the traditional categories. As things stand, we look to 19th-century case law, which sets out that a thing can only be property if it fits into the two traditional categories of things in action and things in possession. The unique characteristics of digital assets, like crypto tokens, challenge the boundaries of these legal categories.

Unlike physical objects, digital assets cannot be held in one’s hand. Unlike debts or contractual rights, digital assets have an independent existence in the world that is not dependent on their recognition by a legal system. Yet certain digital assets possess the characteristics that the common law recognises as making them suitable to attract property rights. For example, certain digital assets, like crypto tokens, are rivalrous, meaning their use by one person prevents simultaneous use by others. By contrast to crypto tokens, some digital things, like Word documents, are not rivalrous and so are not  recognised by the common law as being capable of attracting property rights. For example, if I were to send you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Word document, I retain a copy, but if I transfer a crypto token, I no longer possess it. This is due to the underlying blockchain technology that ensures immutability, scarcity and non-duplicability—features that make certain digital assets capable of attracting personal property rights even if they are not a thing in possession or a thing in action.

Recent case law has begun to recognise that certain digital assets can attract personal property rights. However, these decisions have not come forward in precedent-setting courts, and thus the legal landscape remains uncertain. This ambiguity risks stifling innovation, as innovators are unsure what protections they have or whether they will be able to monetise their creation. It also puts off investors from investing in crypto tokens in favour of more traditional and predictable forms of investment. If we do not act, we risk our global competitors getting ahead and putting in place the kind of certainty in their own legal systems that will divert investment away from this country.

Recognising the urgency of this issue, in 2020, under the previous Government, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Law Commission to review the legal framework surrounding crypto tokens and other digital assets. The commission’s 2023 report was unequivocal: certain digital assets should be recognised as capable of attracting property rights, and legislation was needed to reflect this. The Government have responded decisively. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is the result—a concise yet powerful piece of legislation that affirms our commitment to legal clarity, economic growth and technological leadership.

The Bill contains a single operative clause. It recognises that a thing, including a thing that is digital or electronic, is not prevented from attracting personal property rights merely because it is not a thing in possession nor a thing in action. The Bill allows the courts to develop a further category of personal property through our common law.

Importantly, the Bill does not attempt to define which digital assets may qualify, nor does it prescribe the legal consequences of falling within this category. These matters are rightly left to the common law, which, with its flexibility and nuance, is best suited to assess each asset on its characteristics. This is in accordance with long-established common-law tests for property. This approach reflects the strength of our tradition. It capitalises on the adaptability and flexibility of the common law by empowering the courts to apply established legal tests to emerging technologies. This ensures that our legal system remains responsive, relevant and resilient.

We stand today at the intersection of law and innovation, where centuries of legal tradition meet the boundless potential of the digital age. The Bill is not just legal reform: it is an important step for our law and for the global digital economy, because digital assets are here to stay. From crypto tokens to voluntary carbon credits, these assets are reshaping how we transact, invest and interact—and yet, until now, our private law has struggled to keep pace. This Bill changes that.

First and foremost, the Bill provides legal certainty. It confirms that certain digital assets can be recognised as personal property. This is a fundamental shift. It means that individuals and businesses can now rely on clear  legal rights and protections when dealing with things such as crypto tokens. That is because certain digital assets can now attract the same legal protection as other forms of property, which means that owners of things such as crypto tokens can enforce their rights if the asset is stolen. Whether it is theft, insolvency or inheritance, the law will now stand ready to protect those property rights.

By clarifying the legal status of digital assets, the Bill reduces ambiguity and streamlines litigation. That is because the courts will no longer have to spend time debating whether further categories exist or trying to force digital assets into the traditional categories. That clarity will save time, reduce costs and ensure fairer outcomes for all parties involved.

As I have said, the Bill also supports our ambition to be a centre of innovation and growth. It encourages fintech start-ups, scale-ups and global enterprises to choose English and Welsh or Northern Irish law for their transactions, knowing that these legal systems are equipped to handle the complexities of digital assets. The Bill thus unlocks practical economic benefits. It assists in allowing digital assets to be included in estates for inheritance and claimed by creditors in insolvency. These capabilities will fuel innovation, support new financial products and drive economic growth.

Crucially, the Bill does not attempt rigidly to define every type of digital asset. Instead, as I have said, it allows the common law to evolve, giving our courts the flexibility to adapt to technologies that have not yet even been imagined. That is one of the hallmarks of a progressive, forward-thinking legal system such as ours.

This Bill attracted significant cross-party support in the other place. For example, it was described by Lord Holmes as

“a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. xx-xxxx-xxxx.]

It was also described as a Bill that

“sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets”

that

“London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. xx-xxxx-xxxx, c. 845.]

to do business.

In the same vein, Lord Sandhurst noted that the Bill was “small but perfectly formed” and that it will

“make an important contribution to the development of the law...and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere...which might otherwise fail to be protected”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. xx-xxxx-xxxx.]

Those are not just words of praise: they are affirmations of the Bill’s importance, clarity and potential to shape the global legal and economic landscape. One noble Lord remarked on Third Reading that “the world is watching”, and rightly so.

We have a proud tradition of legal excellence and a thriving fintech ecosystem. With trillions of pounds in global economic activity expected to be transacted via digital assets by the end of the decade, we must ensure that our legal infrastructure is not only fit for purpose, but fit for the future. This Bill is a critical step in realising that potential.

Of course, the Bill underwent much scrutiny in the House of Lords, and two amendments were made to it. The first extended the territorial scope of the Bill to include Northern Ireland. We are glad that our laws can be aligned in this area and that the benefits of this Bill will be felt more widely. The second amendment was to the Bill’s long title. That was to ensure consistency between the title and the Bill’s operative clause. I am certain that we now have the best possible version of this Bill before us.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a testament to the strength and adaptability of our legal tradition. It reflects our commitment to innovation, our respect for the rule of law and our ambition to lead on the global stage. It was described in the Lords as

“future facing, future-proofing, growth enabling ground-breaking and good for innovation, investment, citizen, consumer and the country”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1297.]

I could not agree more. It is a Bill for the future—a future in which digital assets play a central role in our economy, our society and our lives. By passing this Bill, we are not only clarifying the law, but shaping that future. Let us seize this opportunity and send a clear message to the world that we are ready, willing and able to lead in the digital age. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to express our support for the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. I do not have the benefit of being a learned Member like the Minister, so I have enjoyed getting to understand what property law looks like in the UK.

As the Minister said, this Bill comes before this House from the other place, where it has already received careful and considered scrutiny. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made there by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose deep expertise in digital and emerging technologies greatly enriched the debate, and the noble Lord Sandhurst, who rightly described this Bill as

“a necessary but appropriately constrained measure.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC284.]

This Bill both preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law and provides just enough statutory clarity to support continued innovation and legal certainty in a fast-moving world.

Recognising the need in 2020, the previous Conservative Government asked the Law Commission to examine how the law of personal property should respond to digital assets. The commission undertook extensive consultation and concluded that some assets defy current classification. In response, it recommended confirming in statute that assets need not be things in possession or in action to attract property rights, paving the way for a third category of personal property and ensuring that our common law can continue to evolve with confidence and coherence.

This may be a short Bill, but it carries significant weight for not just the UK’s legal framework, but our global reputation as a leader in digital innovation. As other jurisdictions watch how we respond to technological  change, this Bill reaffirms the UK’s commitment to legal clarity, innovation and economic competitiveness. We have a world-leading fintech ecosystem, and with trillions of pounds in digital asset transactions expected globally by the end of the decade, the UK must ensure that it remains at the forefront, supporting innovation, financial inclusion and the future of capital markets.

This Bill also complements a wider programme of regulatory reform already under way in the UK. Since 2023, firms promoting crypto assets have been subject to Financial Conduct Authority rules, including mandatory risk warnings and a 24-hour cooling-off period for new consumers. Anti-money laundering rules apply, and crypto firms must register with the FCA. In 2025, the Government published draft legislation to bring a wider range of crypto assets activities, such as trading platforms and custody services, under full financial regulation. The FCA and the Bank of England are also consulting on new rules for stablecoins, prudential safeguards and the safe custody of digital assets, while the Bank explores the future of a potential central bank digital currency, the “digital pound”. Those efforts, taken together with this Bill, represent a joined-up and forward-looking approach to digital asset regulation in the UK.

As the Minister explained, for centuries the law has recognised two traditional categories of personal property: things in possession, referring to tangible objects such as a bar of gold, and things in action, such as debts or contractual rights enforceable only through legal process. However, the rise of the digital economy has introduced a growing range of assets that defy those historical classifications.

From crypto tokens and digital files to in-game items and carbon credits, individuals and businesses now interact with a third category of asset. This Bill introduces that third category of personal property by confirming what the courts have been increasingly willing to suggest: that a thing is not precluded from being treated as property merely because it does not fit the traditional mould. It does so in a deliberately modest way, allowing the common law to evolve with technological change, rather than attempting to predict or prescribe it.

As Lord Sandhurst put it in the other place, we should champion the flexibility of the common law and legislate only to reinforce and clarify developments already emerging within it. This Bill strikes the right balance: it is principled in substance but careful in its implications. It gives confidence to our courts, clarity to commercial actors and reassurance to individuals navigating digital ownership. We welcome the Government’s amendment in the other place to extend this legislation to Northern Ireland and the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly to that extension. I understand that the Scottish Government have consulted separately on the question of recognising crypto tokens as property under Scots law.

Let me take a moment to welcome the Government’s stated intention in the impact assessment of reducing the burden on businesses by improving clarity in this space. At a time when digital assets are increasingly used as a means of payment, representation or value storage, it is vital that our legal architecture keeps pace—not to control innovation, but to support it with the rule of law. We on the Conservative Benches are  committed to ensuring that our legal system remains fit for the 21st century and can accommodate new technologies while safeguarding rights and responsibilities.

While we are pleased to support this Bill, let us not lose sight of the broader context. After a year of downgraded growth forecasts, our economy contracting, unemployment and inflation rising and borrowing costs creeping up, the UK urgently needs legal reforms that drive up competitiveness and economic growth. Like the recent reforms to our international legal procedures, it is no coincidence that this Bill stems from a review commissioned by the last Conservative Administration—a Government who really understood the importance of forward-thinking legal reform to support technological and financial innovation to drive economic growth. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Will Forster: I rise in support of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which stands to bring our legal framework into the 21st century and better equip it to meet the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. This Bill is firmly rooted in the rigorous work of the Law Commission, which was followed by careful scrutiny in the other place. I thank peers for their work on the Bill, particularly Lord Tim Clement-Jones for scrutinising it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

This Bill confronts the long-standing legal ambiguity about how our common law system treats digital assets. As the Minister explained, and as I vaguely remember from my days at law school, the law as it stands recognises two primary forms of personal property—things in possession and things in action. However, we live in an ever-changing digital world, in which everything is much more based on digital than that common-law approach allows for. Digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do not constitute a claim against another person, do not fall into the two traditional categories. Without clarity about the law, we risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving crypto assets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings. That is why this Bill matters; it ensures that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the two normal categories. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations.

This Bill is appropriate at this time, when we are seeing a growing use of digital assets across a variety of sectors. They are being used as investments, stores for value and tokens of identity and ownership by more and more people than ever before—recent figures from the Financial Conduct Authority indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold crypto assets, a figure that has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, those seeking restitution in cases of insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold have been operating in a murky legal landscape. This Bill leaves room for common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the ever-evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individuals’ rights and support the economy.

We know that digital assets mean potential risks—whether fraud, abuse, or volatility—but ignoring them or failing to regulate them effectively will not make those risks disappear. A legal vacuum only increases the risk of criminality and injustice, while a clear, modern legal framework empowers the honest majority, boosts confidence and supports innovation. This Bill is measured, cautious and essential. It provides legal clarity, upholds property rights, and ensures that our laws remain relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners, and by the Liberal Democrats. I hope everyone in this Chamber supports it, too. \p Sarah Sackman: With the leave of the House, let me say how grateful I am to those who have contributed to today’s debate, in a rare expression of consensus. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). The quality of the discussion, both in this House and in the other place, reflects the significance of the Bill that is before us. As I have said, it is the product of rigorous analysis and wide consultation. I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its landmark report, and to the many practitioners, academics, businesses and organisations that have engaged so constructively throughout the process.

At its heart, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is about ensuring that our legal system keeps pace with technological change. It is a clear, confident step into the future, one that reaffirms the UK’s place as a global leader in legal innovation, financial services and digital commerce, and it is a central part of this Government’s plan for change and for growth. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]: \p UNKNOWN: (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading. \p UNKNOWN: (5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p Lucy Powell: I beg to move,

That this House approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards, Session 2024–25, HC 943, on Register of Interests of Members’ Staff, subject to any transitional arrangements agreed by the Committee on Standards, and amends the provisions endorsed by the Resolution of the House of 28 June 1993 as follows:

Members’ staff who hold a permanent photo-identity pass or have been granted a Parliamentary network account are required to register in the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff, subject to the thresholds set out in that Register:

“Any occupation or employment for which they receive over £470 from the same source in the course of a calendar year, if that occupation or employment is in any way advantaged by the privileged access to Parliament afforded by either a photo-identity pass or a Parliamentary Network Account;

Any gift (eg jewellery) or benefit (eg hospitality, services) they receive, if the gift or benefit in any way relates to or arises from their work in Parliament and its value exceeds £470 in the course of a calendar year; and/or

Any visit undertaken that has been paid for by a third party, if it in any way relates to or arises from their work in Parliament.”

The motion before us, which stands in my name, is moved on behalf of the Committee on Standards and relates to the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. I welcome the Committee’s consideration of this matter and its report. If approved, the motion would widen the boundaries of who has to register their interests in the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff to include all those who have a parliamentary network account, as opposed to the current position, under which only staff who hold a photo-identity pass for the estate need to register their interests.

The Committee’s report, which is available to the House, outlines that the intention behind this expansion of the register is to reflect current working practices. There has been a significant increase in the number of staff who have full access to parliamentary information and materials without needing to be present on the estate. As the Committee’s report has outlined, that has resulted in more than half the staff employed by Members not being required to make a transparency return. I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and to its members for all their hard work on this matter.

I know that the Chair will want to contribute to this debate to outline some of the background to the Committee’s work, and how it intends to implement this measure should the House approve it today. I can assure the House that the intention is to provide time for the Committee to make any transitional and technical arrangements necessary for the introduction of the change, and that details will be provided to all Members and staff. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Leader of the House. \p Jesse Norman: I thank the Leader of the House for those words. I would like, in supporting the motion, to add one small cautionary note. It has been relayed to me, both by constituency staff and by other bodies, particularly the trade unions, that there is a concern that it might be possible to connect the names released in the official public register with the email addresses used by staff. I would be grateful if the Committee devoted some consideration to that concern, among the other issues that it will wish to reflect on further, to ensure that this ruling is as good and effective as possible. \p Alberto Costa: I, too, thank the Leader of the House for so quickly coming forward with a proposal to enact the sole recommendation of my Committee’s third report of this Session. The Committee agreed its report on 12 June, and here we are, barely a month later, seeking to put its recommendation into practice. The change we propose is straightforward and quite confined, but none the less it is a real pleasure to see our proposal make such quick progress.

As today’s motion makes clear, the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff—those whom we as MPs employ to help us in our work—has been in its present form since 1993. At that time, it was considered that Members’ staff had privileged access to the parliamentary estate and its facilities because they held a pass allowing them physical access. It was therefore those staff, and those staff only, who were required to register any relevant interest. Times have changed, as times are wont to do. The arrival in the intervening 32 years of such minor innovations as the internet and mobile telephony have enabled remote access to the estate in a way that was not envisaged when the register was first created. There has also been a substantial growth in the practice of working from home, and it is now entirely possible—in a way it was not then—for our constituency-based staff to have access to parliamentary information and facilities without ever setting foot within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.

In a sense, we are acting quickly to catch up slowly on the way that work and working practices have altered. At the time of our report a month ago, around 2,000 passes had been issued to our staff, but around 4,200 members of staff had parliamentary network access. The change the Committee proposes simply means that all those who have such access will be required to register any interest arising from the list set out in the motion. It will be a small, but important, reinforcement of the transparency that the House properly seeks in how the parliamentary community does its vital work.

The change, as the Leader of the House suggested, will not happen instantly if the House agrees to the motion. The Committee has sought to include a transitional provision in the motion to enable the Standards Committee to press “Go” once the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests has satisfied us that the IT solutions required, of which we have seen examples, are robust and ready to go.

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his comments and the concerns that he noted in respect of the motion. The Committee is aware of the concern,  raised via Unite the union and by some staff, that a new requirement to register interests will place their names on a public register, and the Committee and I have offered to meet staff representatives during the transition period to hear those concerns and also, if necessary, to consider whether ameliorations may be required, and I will report to the Leader of the House if that proves to be the case. I am grateful to Unite for raising those concerns with the Committee, and I am also grateful to it for saying that it approves of the principles behind the change.

With that caveat in mind, the Committee hopes that the new arrangements will be in place in the autumn, and, in conjunction with the Registrar, we will seek to publicise the change to ensure that all Members are able to encourage their staff to register as required. Let me again thank the Leader of the House for responding so promptly, and I thank the shadow Leader of the House for noting the concerns that have been raised by some. I trust that the House will feel able to approve these new arrangements. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the Chair of the Standards Committee for explaining the background to the report. I have given him this commitment, both privately and publicly: I am keen to bring the recommendations of Standards Committee reports to the Floor of the House as soon as possible, and I hope that I have shown willing by doing that so quickly on this occasion. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his reassurance to the shadow Leader of the House and to the trade unions—particularly Unite—which I know fully support the principles of this measure and the intention behind it, although I think that, as the shadow Leader said, there are some concerns about the creation of an entire register for staff members with nil returns that could perhaps be “farmed” by those trying to lobby people and gain access to them, with their names and email addresses out there for public view.

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman consulting and working with the unions in the coming weeks on how this can be delivered. If any changes are necessary, my door, as ever, will be open. I thank him and the whole Committee, and I thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for all his work with the Committee on this issue and many others.

Question put and agreed to. \p Stephen Morgan: I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of giving every child the best start in life.

This Government have a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people, so that background does not determine a child’s future and successes. After 14 dark years under the Conservative party, we are restoring to our communities the hope that, in too many places and for too many families, simply faded away. What this Government inherited was a truly shameful legacy. The Conservatives had 14 years in government, and their record speaks for itself: 1,300 children’s centres closed or hollowed out, early years childcare costs spiralling way above the rate of inflation, and providers closing year on year. I know that Conservative Members, very few of whom are present, will bleat that in their manifesto they promised better, but the people of Britain judge politicians by what they deliver, not what they promise.

At the heart of Labour’s ambition for a better Britain is bringing change to the first few years of every life, so that opportunity is not the privilege of a few but is common to us all. Children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances, and it is there that we can make the biggest difference. On average, 40% of the overall gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers has already emerged by the age of five. It is in those early years that so much of the inequality that today disfigures our society is entrenched. If we want to build the fairer and more equal society that Labour Members want to see, that is where we lay the foundations. If we want to see change—change for good—the transformation that we seek to bring must be part of a wider approach that covers every aspect of education and health, and every facet of opportunity.

That is why the Government have published our vision for the future of early years. This landmark strategy, which will bring together early years and family services, and will put children’s first years at the heart of work to improve life chances, is backed by nearly £1.5 billion over the next three years to raise quality, close gaps and break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.

“Giving every child the best start in life” sets out the first steps to delivering on our plan for change commitment for a record number of children to be ready to start school by 2028. We will make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable, improve quality in the early years and reception, and expand and strengthen family services. This builds on the progress that we are already making: funding new and expanded school-based nurseries across the country, funding new breakfast clubs in 750 early adopter schools and offering places to nearly 180,000 children, including 79,000 pupils from schools in the most deprived parts of the country.

From September we will be rolling out 30 hours of funded childcare for working parents, saving eligible parents using their full entitlement an average of £7,500 a year. It should be the case that all parents who want it can obtain the high-quality early education and childcare that they need, yet four in 10 parents with children  under five say that there are not enough places locally. Disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs and disabilities have the most to gain from high-quality early education, yet more affluent areas often have more places.

We will improve the system, setting out a long-term vision for improving access to early years education and childcare to ensure that all families can benefit. We will create tens of thousands more places in new and expanded school-based nurseries, backed by more than £400 million of investment. We will roll out the expansion of funded childcare hours available to working parents, saving eligible families an average of £7,500 a year. We will work closely with local authorities to increase the take-up of the 15-hour entitlements, so that children from low-income families, those with SEND and those in care receive the support they need.

As a result of the decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government will soon be funding about 80% of the early education and childcare hours in England. Whenever the Government buy a service, they have an obligation to use that purchasing power in the public interest, to shape the market, improve standards, and support and develop the workforce. That is what Labour believes, and that is what we will do. We think we could do more to guarantee the benefits of that investment, and to ensure that they are realised where they are needed. We will look across the early education and childcare support provided by Departments to find ways in which to make it simpler, to improve access, and to increase the overall impact of Government spending on children and families.

I have the privilege of being able to see at first hand the impact that our passionate early years staff have in many settings across the country during my regular visits. They have worked brilliantly to deliver for families at every stage of the expansion of Government-funded childcare, and they continue to do so ahead of September. Families know the difference that access to a place that meets their needs can make. That is why we are investing more than £9 billion in early education and childcare, and why a diverse and thriving early years sector with a brilliant and valued workforce is absolutely key. We will work with the early years sector to support brilliant settings to grow and spread their expertise, and that will include working alongside philanthropists and social investors to encourage new not-for-profit providers to open.

We want early years careers to be ones that people are proud to start and that are rewarding to pursue. That means having more opportunities to gain qualifications, enter the workforce and build fulfilling careers. Childminders play an integral role in our early years landscape and are treasured by many families, which is why we will keep working with Jobcentre Plus to encourage people to become childminders. However, having listened to the sector, we will also make sure that childminders and other providers can be paid monthly for funded hours, making their income more stable. Alongside a strong market, we want to drive higher standards through a strengthened improvement and accountability system that supports and drives high-quality provision for settings and families. That includes funding for Ofsted to inspect settings more often and to inspect new settings within 18 months of opening.

The early years workforce is at the heart of this Government’s mission to give every child the best start in life. We are making sure that a high-quality start transitions into starting school by making reception year a national priority for the regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—teams. We want high-quality evidence to underpin the training, support and development of people working in early years settings, from the baby room to the reception year. This will mean that passionate people can grow their skills and careers, and help every child to thrive.

Together with educators and leaders, we will drive high and rising standards by working with providers and schools to equip to them with the tools, training and support that they need to meet every child’s needs. Alongside raising the standards of early years educators by introducing a professional register, we will increase the number of qualified early years teachers, and we aim to more than double the number of funded early years initial teacher training places by 2028. We will also offer financial incentives to attract and keep early years teachers in nurseries serving the most disadvantaged communities, so that every child, no matter where they live, can benefit from high-quality early education.

The SEND system we inherited from the Conservative party has totally lost the confidence of families, and this Labour Government are absolutely committed to restoring that confidence. The last Conservative Education Secretary labelled the system that she left behind as “lose, lose, lose”, while current shadow Ministers say that they did not do enough on SEND and should hang their heads in shame. We agree—the difference is that we are doing something about it.

We will make inclusive practice standard practice in the early years by embedding an inclusive approach in our workforce education, training and leadership opportunities, and by funding evidence-based programmes that are proven to improve children’s development. We will drive improvements in the quality of teaching in reception and ensure that schools have access to the right tools and tailored improvement, including by helping each parent to play their part and be confident in their child’s progress.

This renewed vision for the early years goes hand in hand with a national approach to family services—one that brings together health, education and social care around the needs of families, children and babies. That is why I am proud that this Government have established Best Start family hubs that will be funded across all local authorities, building on the best of Sure Start, family hubs and Start for Life approaches. \p Will Forster: The Minister mentioned family hubs, which I welcome, but he stated that they will be delivered by local authority area. In my area of Surrey, we are going through local government reorganisation. How will the roll-out be impacted by that reorganisation? Does he expect to roll out a plan over the next couple of years, and then to reorganise it after a new council has been created? \p Stephen Morgan: We are obviously working through the detail of our commitments as I speak, but I will certainly take his point back to the Department—I know that officials are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local  Government. What is really powerful is the fact that we will roll out family hubs to every local authority in the country to make sure that they make a real difference to every child’s life.

We are investing over £500 million to expand Best Start family hubs to every local authority in England, ensuring that wherever they live, families can access joined-up, high-quality support from pregnancy through to the early years. As part of this investment, we are providing dedicated funding to deliver evidence-based support for the home learning environment, with a particular focus on disadvantaged families and the quality of parent-child relationships. We want to support parents to create rich and nurturing home environments by encouraging them to chat, play and read more with their children, because we know that those everyday interactions are the building blocks of early development.

In order to help meet our ambition for 75% of children to achieve a good level of development by the age of five, we will fund more evidence-based parenting and home learning programmes so that more families can access those services before their children start school. That will be supported by a new national Best Start digital service, linked to “My Children” on the NHS app, which will bring together the trusted advice and guidance that all parents need in one place, and link families to their local services.

The Labour Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and the early years are where we do that most powerfully. Our ambition is clear: to make early years education the best it can be for children in all settings. This is the start of a decade of national renewal for families and the support that they receive. We will go further and faster to ensure that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and to thrive. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Neil O'Brien: Everybody wants to give children the best start in life. That is why we increased spending per pupil in schools by 11% in real terms in the last Parliament, and why we doubled real-terms spending on the free entitlement for the early years. More importantly, it is why we pushed through difficult reforms to schools, which were often opposed by the Labour party. It is why we brought in the knowledge-rich curriculum, why we brought in stronger accountability, and why we pushed through the academies revolution and more parental choice.

The Minister said that our record speaks for itself, and it does. Labour’s record speaks for itself as well. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the programme for international student assessment league table for maths, while Wales—spending the same amount as before—went from 29th to 27th. [Interruption.] Labour MPs clearly do not like hearing this, but I am afraid I am going to carry on. In science, England went from 11th to ninth, while Wales—with same amount of money as before but run by Labour, with no reforms—slumped from 21st to 29th. \p Christopher Vince: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way? \p Neil O'Brien: I am happy to take an intervention. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the shadow Minister for taking my intervention; he is always very generous with his time. I will give him a friendly intervention. I was going to criticise the Conservatives for a lack of attendance in this debate, but he said the words “no reforms”, and I notice that there are no Reform MPs present for this important debate. When I spoke in the general election campaign about education and it was the turn of the Reform candidate in Harlow to give us his views on the party’s vision for education, he did not have an answer. Does the shadow Minister agree that we do not want the Reform party anywhere near education? \p Neil O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and it is not the first time—it is generally the case that no one from Reform is present. On this issue, I am afraid that Reform MPs are chronically absent, as we say in education.

I will continue with my theme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the huge difference in performance, and the divergence in performance, between England and Wales cannot be explained by poverty rates or ethnicity. It is to do with the reforms that were not undertaken because of trade union pressure in Wales. \p Darren Paffey: I agree that it is crucial to measure the progress of our children in key subjects to give them the best opportunities in life, but does the shadow Minister not accept, as I and many others do, that the climb up the international league tables was caused by restricting the breadth of the curriculum? That has come at the detriment of many opportunities for children over recent years. \p Neil O'Brien: I do not think that is true. Looking at the evidence pack produced by the Government’s curriculum review, it is clear that some of the arguments are overstated. It is true that we reversed the decline in the number of young people taking double and triple science; that had been falling for years, and it went back up again because there was more focus on science. It is true that there are a limited number of hours in the school day, but I do not accept that we had some sort of Gradgrindian educational agenda. There continues to be a broad and balanced agenda. If Labour Members want to say that much more time should be spent on a particular subject, they should at least be clear about where it will come from.

Children in England were ranked the best in maths in the whole western world in the 2023 trends in international mathematics and science study, and they moved into the top five in the global rankings for science. What happened in Wales and Scotland? We do not know, as their Administrations removed themselves from those competitions because they do not like accountability. It is the same at all levels.

Whereas we favoured parental choice and autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability, the current Government take a very different approach. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the Lords, dilutes parental choice, and it gives local politicians more control over pupil numbers for the first time since 1988. The greater autonomy for schools that we brought  in has been replaced by a tide of micromanagement of curriculum and staff, and the absurd situation where if someone wants to put up a bicycle shed they have to apply to the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the ultimate form of accountability—placing schools under new management via academy orders—is being slowed down and stopped, which has been criticised even by Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).

The Labour party’s attempts to mess around with Ofsted to please the trade unions have watered down accountability for parents and made things more complicated, but they have not made anybody happy; nobody is happy with what has been proposed in the end. The Government have axed all the forms of support that we were making available to schools for subjects from advanced physics to maths, Latin and advanced computing—they think they are elitist. They have also axed the behaviour hubs, even though there is clear evidence that they were working and schools that went through them were twice as likely to be good or outstanding afterwards. The reform agenda is just not there.

At one point, the Government’s big answer was that they were going to employ 6,500 more teachers: they were going to increase VAT and employ all these extra teachers. The Chancellor said at the end of last year that every single penny of that VAT increase would go to education, but then, confusingly, the Prime Minister said that the money had been spent on social housing instead. It has been a long time since I studied formal logic, but we cannot spend every single penny on education and also spend that money on housing; we cannot spend it on two things. As it happens, we now know that actually there are not those extra teachers; there are 400 fewer teachers. We added 27,000 teachers under the last Government and under Labour there are 400 fewer teachers.

At the point when the numbers came out showing that there were fewer teachers, the Government suddenly declared that primary school teachers do not count—that the fall of 2,900 in primary school teacher numbers did not count. Ministers implied that that had always been their intention—they said, “How dare you say that wasn’t our intention?”—but they announced this policy in a primary school, and they said they would hit their targets for early years through an increase in primary. Now they say, “Oh, numbers are falling in primary,” but numbers are falling by a lot less than when they made the pledge in the updated forecast. If we apply the same logic, half of secondary schools have falling numbers, so perhaps that will be the next way they try to monkey around with the numbers to pretend that the opposite is happening. I would not mind so much if we did not get these chirpy press releases from the Department saying, “We’re doing so well; we’ve got all these extra teachers.” There are fewer teachers—that is the bottom line in what has happened here. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. I have to say, as a former teacher who left the profession because of the way we were treated by the previous Government, that I always feel a little bit gaslit by the Conservative party. I would just point out to him that during the previous Government’s time in office, a third  of new teachers were leaving the profession within five years. Does he not recognise that the pressure put on teachers by the previous Government, the lack of support and the general lack of faith in teachers made a number of them leave, and we lost so much experience that it has been very difficult to get back? \p Neil O'Brien: There are several things to say about that. The first is that the overall number went up: the hon. Gentleman said that some were leaving, but the overall number went up by 27,000. He makes a good point about early career teachers and that is why we put in the early career framework, which I do think is a big improvement. It is not that there is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do think it is funny for him to stand up and talk about gaslighting when the Government are pumping out glossy propaganda saying that there are more teachers, even though their own Department for Education website says that there are 400 fewer teachers. So do tell me all about gaslighting.

My broader worry about the Government’s approach to giving every child the best start in life is that it misses the wood for the trees. Ministers like to talk about some of the small interventions they are making, such as the £33 million they are spending on breakfast clubs and the “best start in life” centres and the increases in spending there. But on the other side of the ledger, how is this being paid for? It is being paid for with a £25 billion increase in national insurance, and, unbelievably for a notionally social democratic Government, that national insurance increase is brutally targeted on the lowest income workers. It is incredible. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I should say that the hon. Member is a shadow Minister, before you give him with a promotion. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask the shadow Minister how his party would fund the investments in early years proposed by the new Government? \p Neil O'Brien: I am very grateful to be put right back in my box by Madam Deputy Speaker, and rightly so.

I would not fund that by increasing taxes on low income workers by £25 billion. That means that someone who is earning £13,000 a year loses £500. It means someone earning £9,000 a year is losing 5% of their income. Ministers like to talk about the distributional impact of things like breakfast clubs and so on—they say 100,000 kids will be lifted out of poverty by something they are doing—but they will not produce any poverty analysis or any distributional analysis of the £25 billion. They are happy to talk endlessly about the distributional impacts of tiny measures, but not the £25 billion takeaway from low income working people in this country. I think it is astonishing—and I think a lot of Labour MPs will regret it later—that this is the way they have chosen to raise all this money.

Let me ask a few specific questions while we are here. The Department for Education has confirmed to the specialist media that it does not hold any information on the number of children who will lose entitlement to  free school meals as a result of the end of the universal credit transitional protection, yet it claims to be confident that it knows that the changes it is making will reduce child poverty by 100,000. How can the Department not know how many kids are going to be on free school meals yet be confident that it will have a positive effect? I ask the Minister to answer the question very simply: what proportion of pupils will be eligible for free school meals this year and in all future years across the forecast? How much will we be spending in real terms in each of those years? I like lots of things about the “best start in life” programme—it is a continuation of our family hubs programme—and I wonder whether the Minister could set out exactly how much will be spent on that programme in the ’26-27, ’27-28 and ’28-29 financial years. It is not a bad programme at all and we do not dislike it at all; the only thing that is not right is to pretend it is a completely new thing, when in fact it is a continuity of something that already existed.

Something that is new that Ministers promised was two weeks of work experience for every child at secondary school. Can the Minister tell me how that pledge is going? It was made by the Prime Minister and was the big highlight of his ’21 conference speech. How many schools currently offer two weeks of work experience each year?

Finally, I have a question of principle really. The Minister quite rightly talked about SEND, and we had an important report from the Education Policy Institute this morning about the overlap between SEND and school achievement, and the Government have said two things. We heard from a Health Minister that the Government want to see a smaller proportion of children in special schools, and we have heard from the Minister’s adviser on SEND that she thinks that they are having a conversation at the moment about not having education, health and care plans for children outside special schools, which covers about 300,000 children at the moment—60% of all children with an EHCP.

Those are huge changes, but is it not the case that those two policy reforms are potentially in tension? If we tell people that they cannot get an EHCP outside a special school, more parents will want to go to the special school. Ministers have talked about there always being some kind of legal right to support for special needs, but what does that mean: if the support is not being delivered by an EHCP, how will it be delivered? I ask these questions because a lot of special needs parents are worried about that; they are concerned about what the Government are planning. Maybe they are wrong and maybe the Government have a brilliant plan on all this, and we are not against reform, but at the moment, there are big questions about the ideas that are now sloshing around in the public domain, worrying people. I encourage Ministers to move quickly to certainty on these questions so that people’s minds could be put at ease.

To conclude, we are all in favour of giving each child the best start in life. We have a proud record, we made great progress, and we wish all the Government all the best, but we worry that they are too often missing the wood for the trees. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Chair of the Education Committee. \p Helen Hayes: Giving every child the best possible start in life should be a driving mission of every Government. Investment in the early years and in a high-quality education for every child delivers among the highest returns of any area of public spending; they are literally building the foundations of a child’s life. Governments who get policy right in these areas reap benefits in health and wellbeing, in economic growth and in lower crisis-related costs.

The previous Labour Government made huge strides in this area. The longitudinal studies now confirm that children who lived close to a Sure Start centre did better in their GCSEs, and that hospitalisation of children was reduced and so was the need for specialist support in education. But a year ago this Government inherited the legacy of a previous Government who had not prioritised the needs of children for 14 years. Sure Start had been largely dismantled and school and further education budgets cut, early years funding had not kept pace with inflation, key services like health visiting and midwifery were scaled back, and SEND provision and CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—were stretched to breaking point, with increasing numbers of children in the care system, who are all too often being failed.

Our children have been buffeted by the multiple blows of austerity, Brexit, the covid-19 pandemic and the Liz Truss mini-Budget bearing down on public services that support children, young people and their families, resulting in more of childhood being left to chance, with existing disadvantages and barriers to opportunity remaining in place and being allowed to perpetuate.

The Education Committee recently published our report on children’s social care. Children’s social care is a good place to start thinking about this Government’s opportunity mission, because it is where some of the most egregious barriers can be found—for the children whose families need the most support, those whose lives are scarred by abuse or neglect, and those for whom the state has both the gravest responsibility and a huge opportunity to make a difference.

The independent review of children’s social care commissioned by the previous Government described the system they presided over as in need of a “total reset”. Spending on early help and support services—the preventive, nurturing support delivered by Sure Start centres, health visitors, community nurses and early years practitioners—has plummeted, while spending on crisis interventions, including out-of-area residential placements often at great cost, have spiralled.

The number of children entering the care system has been rising, and perhaps most telling of all is that the outcomes for care-experienced people are absolutely dire. This failure is so significant that, if the Government are serious about tackling homelessness and about tackling the crisis in the criminal justice system, they must turn their attention to the plight of care-experienced people, who are so vastly over-represented in both those populations. They are far less likely to be in education, employment or training than their peers, and far more likely to have poor mental health. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Before coming to the Chamber, I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on care-experienced children and young people, where I learned that, in the 2023-24, over 15,000 children in care moved home, which is 34%, and nearly 5,500 in care moved school, which is 12%. Does the hon. Member agree with me that, as part of the Government’s strategy, we need to support children in care and minimise the disruption to their lives that we can control? \p Helen Hayes: I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention, and our report, which we published last week, says exactly that. We have a system of children’s social care that is under so much pressure that it all too often fails to put children at the centre of the services that are supposed to be delivered to give them more stability and security in life, and many things about that system urgently need to change.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest in Best Start family hubs, providing better early help and support services in more areas of the country. We need investment that can tip the balance over time from crisis spending to spending on more preventive services that can deliver genuinely good outcomes for children. Our Committee’s report, which I was proud to launch last week, points to some of the further steps that are needed, including creating a national offer for care leavers, improving mental health support for looked-after children and addressing the practical barriers, such as housing, that currently prevent the effective recruitment of foster carers.

On early years, the Government inherited the previous Administration’s commitment to expand funded hours of childcare, predominantly for working parents. This is a very challenging commitment to deliver. We know that quality early years education has the most potential to break down barriers to opportunity, yet the previous Government’s approach was designed to deliver more hours of care, without any specific focus on quality. The early years sector is fragile and fragmented, and providers continue to close. The expansion of school-based nurseries is a very welcome first step, but there is undoubtedly a tension between a funding system designed to support working parents and the early years sector’s ability to reduce the impacts of disadvantage for the poorest children. The Government must address this tension in the forthcoming child poverty strategy.

Our Committee’s second big inquiry is on the system of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The SEND system is the single biggest crisis in the whole of the education system, routinely letting down children and families, putting professionals working with children in an impossible position, and driving more than half of local education authorities to the edge of bankruptcy. Children with SEND should be able to thrive in education, and education should equip them well for the next stage of life, yet for far too many children, the failure of the SEND system results in absence from school, poor mental health and low attainment.

There have been many rumours about what the Government may do to reform the SEND system, and I must say that these rumours are really unhelpful and traumatising for families who already have far too much to contend with. My Committee will report after the summer recess, but I am clear that the Government  should be setting out a clear process and plan for SEND reform, and that any reforms must engage parents and professionals and ensure clear and effective accountability mechanisms. I think the Government are right to start with increasing the inclusivity of mainstream schools, but if they are to do that effectively, there must be proper investment to resource mainstream schools to become more inclusive, with clear definitions of what an inclusive school is and strong accountability.

Finally, a priority that runs through all these issues is tackling child poverty, which rose to shamefully high levels under the last Government and is perhaps the biggest barrier to opportunity of them all. I am delighted that the Government have announced an expansion of the eligibility criteria for free school meals to include all children whose families receive universal credit. As a local councillor in Southwark, I was proud when we introduced universal free school meals for primary children in 2010, and over many years we have seen the benefits of providing children with a nutritious hot meal.

Universal free breakfast clubs will also make a big difference. Hungry children cannot learn, so together these measures will ensure that no child has to start the school day hungry, and that the children who need it most get a nutritious hot meal at lunch time. They will boost learning while also easing costs for parents. However, our Committee has recommended that the Government implement auto-enrolment, so that every child eligible to receive the new expanded free school meals offer receives it automatically and no child misses out. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: One of the drivers of child poverty that has come through in my casework is the Child Maintenance Service’s lack of enforcement powers to hold to account parents who refuse their duties. Does the hon. Member agree with me that greater enforcement powers and greater scrutiny of the Child Maintenance Service are essential for reducing child poverty? \p Helen Hayes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Over my 10 years in this place, I have seen how it has become harder and harder for families to get resources and accountability out of the Child Maintenance Service. I agree that there is further work to do in that space, and I am sure the Government are similarly aware of the challenges. \p Shockat Adam: I thank the hon. Member for giving way, especially as she is making such a powerful speech. Yesterday, I went to an event with Health Equals, which has shown that where a child is born can lead to a 16-year discrepancy in life expectancy due to poverty. Does she agree that some form of legally binding poverty reduction target scheme could be put in place, as in Scotland, so that we can measure our progress? \p Helen Hayes: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and it is devastating to hear about those disparities across the country. Recently, I was at a secondary school in a very deprived area of my constituency, and a teacher told me that she noticed at an event for those from across the whole of her academy trust that her children were smaller than children who went to schools in more affluent areas of the country. That is an intolerable disgrace.

We expect the Government’s child poverty strategy to be ambitious and far reaching, and if it is to do so, it must have clear targets and there must be clear accountability in the strategy. I look forward to its publication, and my Committee, along with the Work and Pensions Committee, will play our part in scrutinising that important piece of work.

I am heartened to see this Government putting children and young people at the heart of their priorities after 14 years during which they were an afterthought. There is much more to do, and my Committee will continue to play our part by scrutinising the Government and making evidence-based recommendations. I want to see a clear vision for children and young people with real ambition for every child, and a plan for all parts of our education and care system, so that we can start to see the promise, in this Government’s agenda, of transformed lives and life chances being delivered in every part of our country. \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr Jogee, are you now finally comfortable in the Chamber? Before, you wanted to swap. [Interruption.] Marvellous. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: I welcome this opportunity to talk about giving every child the best start in life. I suspect there are not many people in this Chamber who would disagree that every child, no matter their background or needs, deserves the very best start in life. It is our duty as elected representatives and policymakers to ensure that parents and carers have access to the help and support they need to ensure that every child gets that best start in life.

The Best Start family hubs announced last week are very welcome and present a great opportunity for the Government to address the growing inequalities across our education system that were left behind by the previous Government. If resourced properly, the Best Start family hubs expansion could help to achieve many of the things that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been calling for, including: the early identification of special educational needs and disabilities; contact time with mental health practitioners; and access to nutritional advice. However, the Government’s ambitious aims must be matched with effective delivery. Children and families cannot afford for the Government to get this wrong, after many years under the Conservatives when early years provision really started to disintegrate.

The strategy states that

“high-quality early education and childcare boosts children’s life chances and enables parents to work”.

I warmly welcome plans to invest in training and qualifications to raise the skill levels of the early years workforce, but I am afraid that the Government’s rhetoric does not quite meet the reality on the ground. The funding promised by the Conservative Government for their 30 hours childcare proposals fell far short of what it actually costs to deliver that provision, and I am afraid that Labour’s current proposals are also insufficient for nurseries.

Labour’s ill-advised national insurance hike has not only hampered economic growth, but put hundreds of charitable and private nurseries at risk of collapse. Indeed, the Early Years Alliance reports that nearly one  third of providers are at risk of permanent closure in the next year, and that four in 10 would reduce the number of funded places for three and four-year-olds. When coupled with damaging new guidance to local authorities on funding agreements, the Government risk expanding the childcare deserts left behind by the Conservative Government. What is the point of expanding early years entitlements for children if parents are not able to access them because providers are simply unable to fulfil them?

With the expansion of childcare provision, keeping our children safe is paramount. I welcome confirmation last week that the frequency of Ofsted inspections of early years settings will increase and that work is being done to develop an effective approach to group inspections. However, as the Minister knows from some of our conversations, if we are to prevent tragedies, such as the case of baby Gigi Meehan in Cheadle and the recent shocking case in my own constituency that last month saw a nursery worker convicted of 21 counts of child cruelty at Twickenham Green nursery, Ministers must go further and they must go faster.

The early years foundation framework urgently needs to be strengthened, and better guidance needs to be put in place for how we keep babies in particular safe in early years settings. That is particularly important as we see the expansion of childcare provision for the under-twos. I hope we will see clearer guidance on safe sleep practice, but also on the use of CCTV, which proved critical in the cases I cited, and on the regular review of that CCTV footage. The strategy points to a

“golden thread of evidence-informed practice”,

so I hope the Minister tell us whether she will work with health authorities and expert charities to co-ordinate national safe sleep standards for use in early years settings. We must ensure that that goes hand in hand with multi-agency safeguarding training.

Giving children the best start in the early years also means giving parents genuine choice on whether to spend more time at home or go back to work full time. I am immensely proud that it was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced shared parental leave—yet, years later, take-up remains far too low because of low rates of statutory maternity and paternity pay, and shared parental leave pay. I am aware that the Government have started their review into parental leave and pay, which I warmly welcome.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for statutory maternity and shared parental pay to be doubled to £350 a week, and for fathers to be entitled to a month of paternity leave, as well as a “use it or lose it” month of shared parental leave, because we know just how valuable the first months of a child’s life are and the importance of the involvement of both parents. I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade will heed our calls. I also want to press him again on the strong economic and moral case for granting statutory paid leave for kinship carers, so many of whom are forced out of work when they take on caring responsibilities to provide a safe and stable home for children.

We must acknowledge that despite all efforts, some children simply will not get the best start in life due to unimaginable trauma, which can mean that the only safe course of action is to separate them from their  birth parents. It therefore falls to us collectively as corporate parents to ensure those children get the very best second chance at life. Family hubs must be more than signposting services; they should offer trusted relationships and trauma-informed practice embedded within staff training and service design as part of the Government’s commitment to rebuilding trust with families.

Continuing on that theme, the adoption and special guardianship support fund, as many Members will know, provides funding for vital therapy to help the most vulnerable children to process their trauma. These sessions are not easy, with some children taking months to even step through the door, but it is vital that these children are given the space, time and support to relearn how to trust adults. Slashing the funding for each child from £5,000 to £3,000 means that many will stop their therapy sessions just as they get through the door and start to make progress. Not only is this incredibly frustrating for the adoptive parents and special guardians; it sadly compounds the child’s tragic belief that all adults do is let them down.

Both the Minister who opened the debate and the Minister for Children and Families, who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench, know that I am determined to see the full £5,000 grant funding restored for every eligible child. I press the Minister again to go to the Treasury and demand the additional funds to meet the growth in demand for those grants so that the next generation can believe that there are adults, and even Governments, worth trusting. I have pointed out previously that halving the Department’s advertising and consultancy budget would enable the ASGSF to grow by 50% from £50 million to £75 million to meet that additional demand.

Short of that, I urge the Minister not to leave parents, carers and children in limbo again by waiting until the last minute to announce whether the fund will continue next year. Instead, I hope that Ministers will commit to announcing the future of the fund by September, now that we have had the spending review, so that families and providers can plan and have certainty for the future.

Finally, parents and carers have for far too long been subjected to an adversarial special educational needs system where they have had to fight tooth and nail to secure their children’s right to learn. A good education helps children to discover who they are and what they are good at, but sadly far too many have been denied the help they need. As the Chair of the Education Committee has pointed out, the rumours that have been swirling have left many families up and down the country deeply concerned. We met a number of those families in Parliament yesterday, and I know that the inboxes of Members across the House have been filled with worried emails on this matter.

It is clear the system is broken and needs reform, but any change must have children at its heart, not a Treasury drive for savings by removing rights in a vacuum. I am glad to see that inclusive practice for children with SEND will be embedded in early years teaching; early identification is crucial in ensuring that children can get the help they need when they need it. However, it remains to be seen just what that help will be. The Government have failed continuously to communicate  with those directly affected by their decisions, but they have the chance today to tell parents whether education, health and care plans will be removed from any child.

I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) said to the Prime Minister last week, and what my right hon. Friend and I said in the letter we sent to the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister, in which we set out the Liberal Democrats’ five principles for SEND reform. We are very happy to work constructively with the Government on that reform, because we know that all these children—whether they have special needs and whatever their background—deserve the very best start in life. \p David Williams: Every child, no matter where they are born, deserves the very best start in life. The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are absolutely critical, paving the way for the rest of their lives. That time has a direct impact on how they perform in school and in their work life; it affects all their life stages.

My first job after leaving Keele University 20 years ago was working for a local Sure Start centre in Stoke-on-Trent. I loved working there because I saw at first hand how those centres completely transformed the lives of families across Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove. That is why the plans of this Labour Government to roll out family hubs across the country fill me with complete pride.

Twenty years ago, so many parents were given the helping hand that they needed to give their kids a better start in life, and it was so devastating for me personally to watch how Conservative cuts absolutely decimated our local centres. The Conservative-led city council in Stoke-on-Trent gutted our centres by removing our most crucial preventive services. The council claimed that it did not actually close any centres, which was partly true, but it took out all the services that operated from the centres, effectively leaving empty buildings with no offer to the families in my local community.

Long before I was involved in politics, it seemed obvious to me that those cuts would result in more kids living in poverty and more living in care. I went to meetings—not when I was involved in politics, but when I worked for the YMCA—and when I raised concerns, they were laughed off by Conservative and independent councillors who said that they knew best. But the facts on the ground said different. Stoke-on-Trent sadly now has among the highest numbers of children living in care anywhere in the country, and more children are living in poverty. This was completely avoidable; it was a political choice that the Conservatives made.

As the children impacted by the cuts grew older, they were confronted by a new hurdle. They were hit by the massive cuts to youth services in our local community. Conservative austerity led to over 90% of the money being taken away from our local councils, which funded the youth clubs—the youth clubs that I went to when I was young, where I met friends and learned new hobbies. Those clubs were then no longer available for young people in our local communities. \p Adam Jogee: rose— \p Leigh Ingham: rose— \p David Williams: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). \p Adam Jogee: I am very grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way to me over my other constituency neighbour. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the vital role that county councils and local authorities can play in providing services to my constituents, his and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). Will he join me in calling on Staffordshire county council to get its act together and deliver the services that our young people deserve? \p David Williams: I completely agree with that sentiment. My hon. Friend and I often discuss this issue, so I welcome his comments. \p Leigh Ingham: I am grateful to see so many Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent MPs in the Chamber today. I am especially pleased to be here today, because I have a group of brilliant young people from my own constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages participating in my first ever summer school; they are up in the Public Gallery. They have been learning about how Parliament works and how they can use their voices to make change happen. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we need to ensure that that includes youth services and comprehensive citizenship education, where they are able to see the difference they can make? \p David Williams: I welcome and echo my hon. Friend’s comments. I have supported citizenship over many years—certainly from when I worked for the YMCA locally.

The Conservatives unforgivably turned their backs on our children and young people when they needed our support the most. I am so proud to be a Labour MP, working alongside a Labour Government who are firmly on the side of children, young people and their families. We are beginning to see the righting of the past 14 years of wrongs.

I have been to Milton and Greenways primary academies in my constituency and visited the breakfast clubs that are being rolled out. I have seen at first hand how the kids arrive tired and hungry, but then they start their day ready to learn and full of energy—no longer with hungry bellies.

I am proud, too, that this Labour Government are extending free school meals. That will feed more than 6,700 children across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove from next year. Being well fed means that children learn better, and it is also a critical step in lifting kids out of poverty—something on which I have focused my whole working career.

I am so pleased also that Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove has one of the very first school-based nurseries, which is being rolled out at the brilliant Smallthorne primary academy. This will not only ease pressures on hard-working families who need a helping hand; it will help kids to prepare for the transition to school, and will help to close the development gap early on. This is exactly what a Labour Government are all about: supporting our kids and young people to thrive. I am  proud to be playing my role in helping to transform the lives of families across my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. \p Judith Cummins: I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025, the Ayes were 334 and the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.

On the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025, No. 737), the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.] \p Danny Kruger: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams); it has been a while since I have heard the words “Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke”, which used to be bellowed out by our former hon. Friend and his predecessor Jonathan Gullis, who was a great schools Minister—briefly—in a previous Government. I pay tribute to him and his memory—much lamented. I also pay tribute to David Johnston, another former Member, who was children’s Minister in the last Government and was responsible for many of the important reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) mentioned.

I welcome this debate on what I think is a cross-party agenda. I recognise much of what the Minister said about the importance of early years and the sorts of interventions that the Government are talking about. I welcome the impending child poverty strategy, which is an important step forward for us.

I want to make a simple and straightforward point. I have heard a lot in this afternoon’s debate about the importance of investment and support for the different professionals who support children and families. That is all absolutely right, and I agree that that is important. Nevertheless, surely the most important resource available to us to support children and young people is their families and the communities that they grow up in. I implore the Government to think very seriously in preparing their strategy to support the conditions for success in childhood, which is about not simply the public sector professionals, agencies and institutions that are available but the strength of the informal social institutions that children and young people grow up in.

I welcome the Minister’s mention of the importance of social investment, philanthropy and civil society in providing support for children and young people. This is a big boast, but I can claim some credit for the announcement that the Chancellor made on Monday. She happened to be at a charity called AllChild in Wigan, which I claim credit for having founded—although that was not on the press release, I note. The charity began life as the West London Zone, which supports children and young people and which I started back in the early 2010s, having visited the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York with the then Secretary of State Michael Gove. The Harlem Children’s Zone is a tremendously successful project aiming at much of the agenda that we are debating this afternoon, including early identification of children at risk, the provision of  intensive support for those children and their families on a community basis, and a place-based model for support for children and families in disadvantage.

We set up the West London Zone with the help of significant philanthropy from Paul Marshall, noted philanthropist and founder of the Ark school chain, who said that we should start one here. We did it on a slightly different model from Harlem’s, which is a monolithic, single entity that provides all services for children and young people. The model we introduced in West London and is now being expanded across the country under the banner of AllChild. I pay tribute to the AllChild team, including Louisa Mitchell, who I got in early to deliver the project, because I would not have been very good at actually running it. Louisa has been a genius, and she is still running it now. This goes to the point I am trying to make: what Louisa did was recognise that in our communities there is an enormous array of really amazing resources in the form of local projects—large and small, formal and informal—that can help with the great task of bringing up a child as a village should.

The mission of the project is to identify in schools—with the help of teachers and, crucially, by using the data available on attainment and attendance—those children who are likely to struggle later. Then it is about ensuring that they get the support that they need, and very much on a personalised basis. That support should come not just from the statutory system around the school—because that will never be adequate for the range of needs and different challenges that a population of children will have—but draw on the resources of the community. We started in west London, which obviously has lots of pockets of wealth but significant pockets of disadvantage as well. Even in those disadvantaged places, and certainly across the country—the project is working in Wigan and elsewhere now—we see tremendous institutions that can support children and young people. The challenge is to do so in a co-ordinated way.

There is a huge opportunity not just to look to the state, schools, local authorities or health—even though bringing all those agencies together around children is important—but to think about the real resource we have, which is in our communities. We should put in place real support and resource for those foundations, whether faith groups, professional bodies of all sorts or community organisations. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Does the hon. Member agree that the foundation of early years starts in the home with parents and the mother’s antenatal and post-natal health, and that the Government should include in their strategy a review of current services and what support can be provided to improve children’s outcomes? \p Danny Kruger: It is funny: I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is great, and not what I expected when he was elected to this place.

I was about to come to my final point: the importance of family life. I do not know to what extent that really is on the Government’s agenda when it comes to the child poverty strategy. There will obviously be lots of talk of families, maternal health and so on, but the crucial determinant of success for children is the quality of the relationships they grow up in.

We know that from all the research done into children’s brain development. Human beings are unique among mammals in that we emerge very unformed: our brains are really blank as we emerge from the womb. The strength and health of our brains and our futures are laid down in those early years by the quality of the relationships we grow up with and experience. I know the Government recognise that because of their emphasis on early years, but the quality of the relationship in the home matters so much. I really hope that the Government will be brave enough to recognise the value of stability in the home and the value of two-parent families as a source of real strength. They are a protective factor and a predictor of success for children and young people.

We should, of course, do all we can to support single-parent families—they are crucial and necessary and do amazing work, and we should give them all our support—but to tackle child poverty we must do more to support family formation and family stability. That means recognising the household as a unit. We are way too individualistic in our approach to public policy. We need to think about family health and family strength, and that means supporting couples. I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and I hope that there will be recognition of the importance of community and family life in the child poverty strategy. \p Abtisam Mohamed: Before I came into politics I spent about 20 years working in and with communities, a significant part of which was in early years, so this area is of real importance to me. Through the Sure Start programme, I helped set up a children’s centre and saw firsthand how early years provision lifts up families, supports parents and gives children the solid foundation they need. The centre that I worked with offered not just childcare but an essential early years services hub to benefit families.

We know, and the evidence shows, that the impact of high-quality early years support lasts a lifetime. The earliest years of a child’s life are critical. The nurturing and love received in those early days can shape their chances for the future in school, in work and in life. Since 2010, however, we have seen a hollowing out of early years support. Sure Start centres closed in their hundreds and early years intervention services were cut to the bone. Our early years provision lost a significant amount of funding, as did many others in Sheffield, with £3 million of cuts city-wide. I became involved in the campaign to save early years, which argued that failing to invest in those services led to our paying a price in school achievement gaps, health inequalities and lost potential. We argued back then, when the cuts were made, that the cost of late intervention to communities and public services is higher than the cost of getting it right from the start.

I therefore welcome the Government’s recent initiatives, such as the expansion of free school meals, free breakfast clubs and the recent £500 million investment into Best Start family hubs. It is important that we catch the problems earlier on, before they escalate, with evidence showing that when we invest earlier on, we reduce the long-term cost for the NHS, social care and the criminal justice system.

It is important, however, that we see additional investment in existing family hubs, which have worked tirelessly to provide vital early years support despite years of funding  cuts. It is also important that we keep the independent, voluntary and community sectors involved in discussion, as many participate in the delivery of early years services and family hubs in their communities.

Investing in family hubs is not just good policy; it is the right thing to do. If we want to tackle child poverty and ensure every child can thrive, that is where we start, with families right at the heart of our communities. \p Rachel Gilmour: The best start in life means a good education; good education means a good school; and a good school necessarily means a learning environment in which children can thrive. Tiverton high school in my constituency should not be an exception to that, but because of the decisions of successive Governments, it has been. I will focus my remarks on the plight of that school, and perhaps it will serve as a microcosm and an example to which other members may well relate in the communities they represent.

Upon visiting Tiverton, one could be forgiven for being sucked into a sense of complacency, with the rolling hills and period buildings in and around the area. Yet hidden there are serious pockets of deprivation, economic and social poverty, and we can feel it. Tiverton high school has been promised a rebuild since 1999—yes, that is 26 years ago—but time after time, successive Administrations of different stripes did not deliver, reneging on those promises.

Since my arrival in this place, I have pushed relentlessly to secure a concrete commitment on Tiverton high school’s rebuild. Indeed, I was filled with optimism because in November last year, the Department for Education confirmed Tiverton high school’s inclusion in the school rebuilding programme, with work set to commence as early as April 2025. Finally, it seemed that the Government had grasped the nettle. Finally, they had heeded the calls, for they had grown impossible to ignore. It was going to happen, I thought; perhaps this was it.

The long-standing promises of a rebuild, which dissipated each time, have meant that Tivvy high, as we affectionately call it, saw routine maintenance and refurbishments fall by the wayside. A culture of “Keep calm and carry on” set in, with the anticipation that the cavalry, or the diggers, would arrive to get the rebuild underway.

The 1970s sports hall is riddled with asbestos, rendering it entirely unusable for many months of the year and depriving students of essential physical education. To make matters worse, the school was built on a floodplain, which is a crucial detail that is blithely skipped over and which was not acknowledged in the pre-assessment conducted by the Department for Education. The Environment Agency has also reported the regular flooding of multiple school buildings to be a risk to life, particularly if someone is under five foot. That is utter madness in 21st-century Britain.

The school is dilapidated and not an environment that is at all conducive to learning. Instead, such an environment leads pupils to feel unnurtured, thrown on to society’s scrapheap and simply forgotten about. What kind of message does that send to children? If the Department for Education rowed back on the promise of a rebuild, it would be not just a political misstep but would see a whole community shunned again. It would be a cruel volte-face. To be clear, we are talking about  the hope of a community that has been strung along for a quarter of a century being reduced to a line in a ministerial briefing.

They say that politics is the art of the grey, and I will not walk away empty handed on this. I am absolutely sure of that. After all these years, the community needs this pledge to be honoured. \p Josh Newbury: It is a privilege to contribute to today’s debate on giving children the best possible start in life. As a father, this is an issue that matters deeply to me, not just politically but personally. We all understand that our experiences in our first years shape the adults we go on to become. The memories formed in those formative years, whether of joy and love or challenge and neglect, stay with us for life. They shape our confidence, our relationships and our view of the world.

I am sure all of us in this Chamber have had the privilege of going into schools and speaking to children about what they want to be when they grow up. What a privilege that is, and what a responsibility it gives us to ensure that today’s children can dream just as big as we did, and feel just as supported in reaching those dreams. That is why it is vital that we do everything we can to make sure that every child, no matter their background, gets the same sense of possibility, the same support and the same opportunities to thrive. I know that I want that for my children.

I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to rolling out Best Start family hubs. These hubs, along with the children’s centres that already exist such as the fantastic West Chadsmoor family centre in my constituency, provide vital wraparound support for families, offering everything from early education to parenting advice and mental health support. The announcement earlier this year of a new school-based nursery at Heath Hayes primary academy is another proud example of how we are supporting children in my towns and villages.

As an adoptive parent and foster carer, I want to take a moment to speak directly to the needs of some of our most vulnerable children—those who grow up in the care system. In Staffordshire alone, the county council supports over 5,000 children, of whom 1,345 are in care. Because of the sadly increasing demand, the council has faced dramatic financial pressures, overspending by nearly £3.8 million, largely as a result of the costs of placing children in care. These figures underline the scale of the demand and the commitment needed to meet it.

I am an evangelical advocate for fostering to adopt, also known as early permanence, and I should declare an interest because that is the path that I have taken in adopting my children. Fostering to adopt allows vulnerable children to move into stable, loving homes as soon as possible, avoiding the uncertainty and disruption that all too often characterise life in care. I would like to put on record my personal thanks to the Minister for Children and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for also being a strong advocate on this, and for giving her time to me today to discuss early permanence and support for fostered and adopted children.

Evidence shows that early intervention, especially when speech and language support is provided before six months old, leads to lasting gains in expressive  vocabulary, social and emotional development, and communication outcomes. Enrolment in support before three months, for example, delivers measurable gains in vocabulary at 18 to 24 months and even helps to close gaps with hearing peers by age five. Children in care are just as full of potential as any other child, but they need us in this place to fight a little harder for them, to make sure that they too, when asked “What do you want to be when you grow up?”, have the support they need around them to achieve whatever those dreams might be.

Labour is delivering the biggest overhaul of legislation to protect children in a generation, because where others dither and kick political footballs, we on this side of the House will always act decisively to look after the most vulnerable. \p Adam Jogee: Just before my hon. Friend comes to the end of his important remarks, I am sure the whole House will want to thank him and his family for leading by example, not just by showing care and compassion but by bringing that life experience to this place. \p Josh Newbury: Thank you. I really appreciate that from my hon. Friend. I think that everybody who puts themselves forward to be an adopter or a foster carer does so with a huge amount of compassion. It is a journey that is often fraught with difficulty, and it certainly presents its challenges, but I think that all parenthood does. Sometimes we need to recognise that parents, no matter how they come to their parenthood, are doing an awful lot to make sure that the next generation thrives—which is, after all, why we are all here today.

This Government are putting in place massive support for kinship carers, with £44 million invested in kinship and foster carers and a new kinship allowance being trialled to provide financial stability to those stepping up to care for children in their wider family. Our national kinship care ambassador is working with local authorities to improve support and permanence pathways, and that is very welcome. Together with the child poverty taskforce, which will report in the autumn, and the expansion of free school meals, these measures underpin our mission to lift 100,000 children out of poverty, because no child should go hungry into their classroom.

By investing in family hubs where families in Cannock Chase and beyond can access wraparound support, by rolling out early intervention programmes that build children’s language and confidence from birth, and by prioritising early permanence and fostering to adopt for children in the care system, we can deliver on the promise of giving every child—not just some—the best possible start in life and the opportunity to make the most of their potential. Every child deserves love, stability and opportunity. Whether they dream of becoming a doctor, a teacher or even a Member of Parliament, it is our duty to ensure that those dreams are possible and to allow every child to make the most of their gifts and potential. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. I welcome the announcements by the Secretary of State and the Government on the investment and the  work they plan to do. We all agree that every child in this country—regardless of postcode, parent or circumstance—deserves the best possible start in life. That is not just a slogan; it is a moral duty and a political choice. It is the foundation for a fairer, stronger and more prosperous Britain, and a critical contributor to the Government’s growth mission.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunities afforded to me when I was a child. I am the eldest of six. My mother was a homemaker, and my father worked in a factory. He then fell ill and was supported by the state. I had free school meals and free school uniforms, and I had the opportunity to go to university without incurring tens of thousands of pounds of debt. I wish for those same opportunities and more for every single child in our country going forward. Yet today, far too many children are being failed by a system that is stretched, fragmented and underfunded. We are the sixth largest economy in the world, and yet we have rising child poverty, overstretched early years services, and a widening attainment and life expectancy gap between the richest and the rest. It does not have to be this way—we can and must do better.

If we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we must start before birth. A child’s life chances are shaped long before they take their first breath. The health and wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers is critical for not only safe delivery, but the emotional and physical development of the child. Yet, across the UK today, midwife staffing levels are dangerously low. Prenatal and post-natal support is patchy and inconsistent. There are real maternity service inequalities for ethnic minorities and in areas of deprivation, and maternal and health needs are too often ignored.

I urge the Government to take a holistic view and review the current state of maternity services across our nation and regions, and to put in the required investment to equalise those services and make them fit for purpose. This is not just a health issue; it is a social justice issue because the poorest women, who are often at the highest risk of complications, are least likely to receive the care they need. Investment in maternal care is investment in stronger families, healthier babies and a better future for all.

To continue where life continues—the early years—the science is clear, as has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. A child’s brain develops faster from birth to five than at any other time. These years shape everything from health and happiness to educational success and economic opportunity, so why is it that access to high-quality early education is still a postcode lottery? Why are childcare workers, who do some of the most vital work in our society, paid less than supermarket staff? We must deliver universal high-quality childcare from the end of parental leave to the start of school, and I welcome the Government’s announcements and investment in this area. I fully support the Government’s plans to invest in the early years workforce, and we must make quality, not just quantity, a measure of success.

Family is the first and foremost influence on a child’s life, yet support for families has been dismantled over the past 14 years. Health visitors have been cut and Sure Start centres closed, and too many parents have been left to struggle alone. I welcome the Government’s plans to rebuild—rebuild family hubs in every community, rebuild our health visiting service, and rebuild trust by giving parents real support and not judgment.

Two of the biggest determinants of how well a child will do in life is where they are born and the income of their family. Across the UK, child poverty has been rising. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 1.6 million children are now affected by the two-child benefit cap. That means 1.6 million children whose futures are being limited by a Government policy—not by anything they have done, or by anything their families have failed to do, but by a decision to deny them the support that they need to grow and thrive. In Dewsbury and Batley, over 11,800 children are growing up in poverty. More than half of them live in working households. Those families are doing everything asked of them—going to work and trying to save—but they are still unable to meet their children’s basic needs. One parent told me:

“We live in a two-bed flat with three children. I have to cycle to work because travel costs would push us into deficit. An extra £50 a week would make a huge difference.”

That £50 could mean a warm coat, a school trip or proper meals for a week. It could mean a child arriving in the classroom ready to learn, not hungry and anxious.

What kind of country does that to its children? We say that we want every child to have the best start in life, but how can that happen if policies deliberately push them into hardship from birth? Reducing child poverty is not just a moral obligation; it is a smart investment. It leads to better health, better educational outcomes, higher future earnings and increased tax revenue. Children are not a cost to be capped; they are our country’s future.

We must also tackle the mental health crisis affecting our children and young people. CAMHS, as we know and have heard many times in this Chamber, are overwhelmed. Children are waiting months, sometimes years, for help. We need in-school mental health support teams in every school. We need early intervention, not crisis firefighting. We must train staff across education and early years in trauma-informed practice.

Let me move on to education. I was blessed with the opportunity to go to school and cannot remember ever going on an empty stomach. The work that my father did, and the support that the Government provided in welfare and benefits, ensured that I did not go to school hungry. I had free school meals and came home to a warm meal. That, I am sure, made a huge difference to what I have been able to achieve in life. Education should be the great leveller, but in reality the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers is growing, not shrinking. We must strengthen the pupil premium, restore funding for early literacy and numeracy, and, yes, expand free school meals to every primary pupil, because no child should learn on an empty stomach. I welcome the Government’s announcement on providing free school meals to every child whose family is on universal credit, but I gently encourage them to consider expanding that benefit so that it is universal.

This is not about short-term fixes; it is about long-term nation building and solutions. It is about a country that invests in its youngest, supports its mothers and refuses to accept inequality as inevitable. When we give children the best start in life, we all benefit, through lower crime, better health, stronger communities and a more productive economy, so let us rise to the moment. Let us stop managing decline and start investing in potential. Let us give every child, in every corner of this country, the best start in life. \p Allison Gardner: I commend the Government for their mission to give every child the best start in life. It is critical that all children, no matter where they are born, have every opportunity to achieve their potential. I must mention at this point the number of Staffordshire MPs who are here for the debate, which just shows the importance of this topic to the children in our county. \p Adam Jogee: Inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), does my hon. Friend agree that team Staffordshire hunt as a pack? \p Allison Gardner: My hon. Friend is right that we hunt as a pack: when the three Stokie MPs get together with our Staffordshire colleagues, we make a formidable bunch, and I am very proud to be part of the team.

I am incredibly proud to work for a Labour Government who are breaking down the barriers to opportunity, tackling child poverty and improving early years development through our plan for change. This is certainly a nationwide issue, but I wish to stress the critical importance of this mission in Stoke-on-Trent South and Stoke-on-Trent more widely. Our children were neglected time and again by the previous Government, and we now have some of the worst outcomes for childhood development, health and wellbeing in the country. Before I list the statistics, I want to point out that Stoke-on-Trent is also the best place in the country to live and that the people are fantastic. We have been let down and that is by no means the fault of the wonderful people of Stoke-on-Trent. \p Uma Kumaran: My hon. Friend is making an important point. My constituency of Stratford and Bow, in east London, was recently scored second best in the country on the Sutton Trust opportunity index, for opportunities for children to advance in life, and the neighbouring constituency, East Ham, scored top. London has severe inequalities in giving children the best start in life, but we also have opportunities. It is important that kids in Staffordshire get the same opportunities. That is why this Government are working to spread that opportunity far and wide, so that they all have the best possible start in life. \p Allison Gardner: I commend my hon. Friend and her neighbour for those wonderful outcomes, although I am sure she still has issues in her constituency that we need to battle against.

As I have said in the Chamber before, child poverty in some parts of my constituency is as high as 76%. In 2022-23, 13 children in every classroom of 30 were living in poverty in Stoke. Stoke-on-Trent has the highest rate of infant mortality in the country, and between 2019 and 2021, babies born in Stoke were nearly twice as likely to die before their first birthday than the national average.

In addition, Stoke-on-Trent has the highest number of children in care per head of population in England, and our children face successive delays in early years development. In 2023, Stoke-on-Trent was in the bottom 10 of all English local authorities for the number of children with the “expected” level of literacy, communication  and language, and numeracy skills by early years foundation stage. I know that these figures will shock many, but Stoke-on-Trent must be a priority region for tackling child poverty and our related missions. There are children in my constituency who start school unable to speak, use the toilet or brush their teeth, and there are children in our high schools who are still learning phonics, which should have been taught in primary school, as they are struggling with such severe delays in their development.

Infant mortality, a topic that is very close to my heart, is explicitly linked to socioeconomic inequalities and persistent inequalities in health. As has been mentioned, the first thousand days of a child’s life are the most important. What happens during those days can, in many cases, predict a child’s entire life course. It is devastating that for so many children in our city their first few years are marked by deprivation, poor quality housing and incredibly low living standards.

Labour Stoke-on-Trent city council is doing excellent work to support our children. It has made major improvements to children’s social care services, focusing on early help and new front-door arrangements, and the family matters programme is a multi-agency programme delivering prevention and support services to give our children the very best start in life. Local organisations, like Thrive at Five and Stoke Speaks Out, have also run incredible programmes to facilitate a thriving early years network in Stoke-on-Trent to improve children’s early development.

However, our city council and our local services have had to work incredibly hard against a backdrop of successive cuts over the past 14 to 15 years that have decimated so many services and forced many to close altogether. Many of our holistic early intervention programmes, where families could get advice, health visitors supported families from pregnancy onwards, and staff could identify families in need and offer early support, have now closed their doors. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for her brilliant speech. Is not much of this issue about the history of our communities? These are industrial heartlands that were let down, left behind and forgotten for many, many years. We need not just joined-up thinking as we address these results, from the early years right through the journey to higher education and beyond, but joined-up results. That is how we will be able to deliver for communities in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent and right across Staffordshire. \p Allison Gardner: My hon. Friend quite rightly points out the complexities and histories of the issues that we face, which we need to solve with a holistic approach.

In the absence of amazing services such as Sure Start, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), the predominant policy route has been to fund reactive services that reach families only at crisis point. Not only is that incredibly costly, but it results in so many children with developmental delays or safeguarding concerns going unnoticed until it is far too late. Early years services provide a lifeline to so many families; in their absence, inequalities have risen and our children have suffered. Stoke’s children deserve better. I am deeply grateful to the Minister, who  is in her place and who has agreed to have a meeting with me to discuss the difficult problems that we wish to solve. The Government are absolutely working hard to address those.

As I said, I am incredibly pleased that this Government are expanding the early years offer through the Best Start family hubs model. I am so grateful that the Government have committed to further support the family hub in Normacot, which the community has fought so hard to save, but families in Meir also deserve a Best Start family hub. Residents in Meir are proud of where they live, but they are aware of the challenges in their community, and they too deserve support. Children in Meir would benefit hugely from a centre in their neighbourhood.

We know what works. We know that high-quality early years education and support networks for families can completely transform a child’s life chances. We know that early intervention is far more effective and affordable than trying to fix problems later down the line. We need policies that improve neonatal and post-natal health, provide parents with the knowledge and support to give their children the very best start and provide children with support to achieve their early learning and development goals. I am therefore so grateful for the expansion of early years support through the Best Start family hubs and our targets for early years development under the plan for change. This Government will bring about much-needed change for children across the country, and it is critical that that investment is received in Stoke-on-Trent South. \p Christopher Bloore: Although the Minister for Early Education is not in his place, I congratulate him on his speech and thank him for all his work, particularly on getting mental health support workers in our schools.

As the Member of Parliament for Redditch and the villages, I see every day how vital the issue of child aspiration and opportunity is. I have seen the powerful impact that early support and investment can make on a child’s life, whether they are growing up in Winyates, Woodrow, Batchley or Matchborough or in villages such as Astwood Bank, Feckenham, Norton or Dodderhill.

This week I have had the pleasure of meeting Rhys Elliot, a young boy in Harvington who is awaiting his GCSE results and has a clear aspiration and dream in his head of what he wants to be. I have also seen the other side, where children are held back not because they lack the talent or ambition, but simply because they did not get the same start as others. Why is it that in some schools, children speak confidently about becoming doctors, lawyers or engineers, while in others they cannot imagine a life outside the limits placed around them?

This is not about ability: it is about opportunity, and opportunity starts early. That is why I commend the Government on expanding breakfast clubs, such as the one at St Stephen’s in my constituency, which are making a real difference. Having spent a morning with the children and parents, I truly appreciate the calm and nourishment that these clubs provide. They set children up for a positive start to their day and ease the pressures on hard-working families. That is why  I also welcome the Government’s plans to increase the number of children in my constituency who will receive free school meals.

I am pleased that Redditch will receive central funding for the first time to roll out Best Start family hubs across my constituency. The hubs will provide wide-ranging support for families, from parenting advice to early development services, offering a vital lifeline for many. They are a true successor to the legacy of Sure Start.

When I listened to the Secretary of State talk about the roll-out earlier this week, I was struck that the Prime Minister came to my constituency on his final stop of the general election campaign. He gave his speech in a Sure Start centre that had been abandoned by the previous Government, in a constituency in one of the most socially and economically deprived areas in the west midlands that had been forgotten. I am delighted that this Government are taking action to reverse 14 years of decline.

I am also happy to see investment making a difference locally. At Matchborough first school academy, funding is being used to convert unused classrooms into nursery spaces, providing high-quality early years places where they are most needed. That is exactly the kind of practical, place-based solution that helps to level the playing field from the very start. My constituency has also seen significant increases in SEN support for my county council—although there is so much more work to do in that area—and the benefits of mental health support workers entering our schools.

However, we must go much further. In my day, I was taught in a class of nearly 40, in draughty temporary buildings. Those days should be behind us, but because of disastrous decisions such as the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, schools such as Ridgeway secondary school are facing the daunting challenge of having to raise millions of pounds to remain fit for purpose. I do not want to see that school—one of the most improved in the country—have tents and temporary buildings forced on it. That is not levelling up; it is letting down our children.

I want to say something very clearly: I have never met a family in Redditch or the villages who wanted an easy ride. I have only ever met families who want a fair shot for their children, a level playing field, and the chance to give their kids the opportunities that they never had. That is why I found yesterday’s debate on the two-child limit so troubling. The official Opposition decided to make children a political wedge issue, condemning their parents for whatever reason or for whatever circumstances they might find themselves in, but that decision will only impact children. That is why I am so pleased that this week, we have seen the announcement of the better futures fund—a decision by this Government to invest in real, outcome-based delivery opportunities alongside the private sector, in order to lift children out of poverty.

We cannot talk about giving every child the best start in life without confronting the reality of poverty in all its forms, including furniture poverty, which is something we do not talk nearly enough about. In my constituency, there are children who go to bed without a bed. Some do not have a desk to do their homework on or a table to eat at, and some do not have a cooker with which their parents can cook a nutritious meal. Despite working all the hours they possibly can, some parents still go without meals just to make ends meet. In his brief  speech, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) talked about families; I would like to put on record that not all families contain two parents. Families come in all different sizes, and we should be supporting all of them, regardless of whether it is two, one, three or four. This is not just about income—it is about dignity, stability and the very basics of a secure home environment, in which a child can sleep properly and study in peace. \p David Williams: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s comments about furniture poverty. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have Emmaus—it is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—which has a “beds for kids” project, because so many kids in Stoke-on-Trent do not even have a bed to sleep in at night. It is important that the issue of furniture poverty is picked up in Government policy. \p Christopher Bloore: I agree with my hon. Friend—furniture poverty is a stain on a society that we have failed. I totally understand the rights and responsibilities of individual parents and families, but when we know there is a problem, we should deal with it. Unfortunately, voluntary groups have taken on that challenge where the state has rolled back support.

When we have the financial capacity, we should throw everything we have at reducing the number of children in poverty, because this is about their dreams. There can be no better investment than in the future of our children, and those of us who believe in social mobility and in the transformative power of education and aspiration must never sacrifice those principles on the altar of desperate attempts at political relevance. Rightly, we often debate passionately in this place how life begins and how it ends, but what about what happens in between? What about the lives that children are living now, those whose families are struggling to afford school shoes or skipping meals to make ends meet? I am glad that this Government are taking on those real challenges, and are refusing to adopt the Opposition’s mantra of condemning parents for their choices or the circumstances they find themselves in.

If we are serious about giving every child the best start, we need more than warm words; we need investment, compassion, and a commitment to early years as a national priority. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have made that commitment in our first 12 months in office, because those first days, months and years are those in which futures are forged, and for which our responsibility as lawmakers and public servants is at its greatest. \p Gareth Snell: It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). He and I have worked together for the best part of a decade, and his commitment to seeing a real improvement in the lives of the children he represents is commendable. We should all take a leaf out of his book.

Like many people in this place, I spend a lot of my time visiting primary schools. I meet the teachers, I am shown around the classrooms, and, being six foot four, I have to try not to take out a row of paintings or some bunting that is hanging across the room. \p Alex Mayer: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend gets to visit lots of primary schools. During the debate I have heard about so many schools all over the country. However, the people of Bidwell West, in my constituency, are still waiting for a primary school. It was promised in plans and brochures when they were buying their new homes more than a decade ago, but it still has not arrived. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important for councils to work constructively with the Department for Education to ensure that these promised schools finally open? \p Gareth Snell: How could I not agree? Those facilities in communities are what turn them from housing estates into homes, and turn the communities into something special.

At this point, I should declare my interests. I am a governor of a special educational needs school in Stoke-on-Trent, and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on children’s literacy, which, with the Minister’s support, is running the national year of reading. I will get on to that later.

When I visit primary schools and talk to the young people in reception and year 1 classes, and see those bright young faces, full of vim and vigour and expectations about what kind of life may lie ahead of them, I think about the statistics, which, as was ably explained by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), are quite stark. Stoke-on-Trent ranks—or did rank—142nd out of 151 for key stage 2 attainment. Although I accept some of the points made by the shadow Minister about the national increase in achievement across certain parts of the education sector, the last Government failed to reduce the attainment gap across the country, and there are still parts of the country, like Stoke-on-Trent, where that gap has not closed.

Cities that are economically and socially challenged—I will not say “deprived”, because I do not like that word—have not seen the improvements that have been seen in other parts of the country. As a result, there are generations of young people whose futures have been essentially stunted because the opportunities available to them are hampered by the absence of the early education and investment that they should have received, which means that their later life attainment is also hampered.

Every time I speak to primary school teachers or headteachers, and even some in secondary schools, the first thing they say to me is “It’s tough.” They say that because, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, there are young people arriving at those schools who are unable to hold a pen or a fork, or are unable to articulate what they are thinking and feeling because their oracy simply is not good enough. That makes communication in early years education almost impossible to achieve. Children are arriving who are not appropriately potty-trained, which means that teaching staff are engaging in a basic level of parenting. \p Adam Jogee: I thank my other constituency neighbour for giving way. Last week I held a headteachers’ forum at a school in my constituency that my hon. Friend knows well for various reasons. What was clear to me  from that conversation—and I am grateful to all those who attended the forum—was that teachers are now undertaking a journey from educating to social work. One shared the story of a nine-year-old child who was not potty-trained, which meant that the teacher was required to help with changing and making the child clean and safe. The morale challenges that teachers face, coupled with the challenges that my hon. Friend has mentioned, illustrate the crisis that we face. That is why it is so important for the Minister’s work to extend not only to Stoke-on-Trent, but to Newcastle-under-Lyme as well. \p Gareth Snell: When we have local government reorganisation, we will be one big happy family in north Staffordshire. Whether it is Stoke-on-Trent or Newcastle-under-Lyme, we will get there. \p Adam Jogee: rose— \p Gareth Snell: No, I will not give way a second time.

My hon. Friend is correct, in that the teachers I speak to say that it is hard. They talk about the societal impacts that are affecting children, through no fault of those young people themselves—there is nothing they can do about it—and impeding their ability. It is the teachers, and also the teaching assistants and support staff, who are having to do the social work. They are helping parents to sort out access to benefit claims, and in some cases they are helping to arrange childcare for parents who are doing shift work. They are stepping into a void that, in some parts of the world, is filled by extended families. In other parts of the world, such tasks are carried out by statutory services. But as a result of cuts to support services, and of social workers having huge caseloads, they are simply unable to do that, so it all falls on people whose primary motivation in life is the education of our young people. \p Allison Gardner: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the extra work that so many of our primary schools do. I particularly want to comment on the headteacher of Alexandra infants’ school in Normacot, Adele Lupton, who has for many years had a community room that is open to the community. She has worked so incredibly hard to support children in incredibly difficult circumstances, and has managed to keep her teams together. She is a shining example, as are so many of the wonderful headteachers in Stoke-on-Trent who fight to deliver the services that are so sadly lacking sometimes. \p Gareth Snell: My hon. Friend has made the point excellently. Although she and I will talk passionately about the experiences that we see in our own city, I am sure that in every city like ours across the country—including, I would wager, Bradford, Madam Deputy Speaker—there are good teachers who go above and beyond to support local communities, and schools that act more as hubs for social support, community involvement and neighbourhood engagement than simply as places for young people to be educated.

We are very fortunate in Stoke-on-Trent, because we already have some family hubs. I have two in my constituency. There is one at Bentilee, which does exceedingly good work, supported by Simon French and the Alpha Academies Trust, and Thrive at Five;  multi-agency activity there is genuinely looking at the direct causes of the attainment issues and at what can be done practically to support families. We also have the hub at Thomas Boughey children’s centre.

The family hubs model is not particularly revolutionary, because it replicates what happened with Sure Start. My daughter is now 14, and her mother and I had to access the Sure Start system when she was born. There were things that, as new parents in our mid-20s, we simply did not know. My family and hers both lived far away, and our network of support was really quite small, so we naturally turned to our Sure Start centre, which was based up the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is no longer in his place—I have denied him the opportunity for another intervention. We walked into the Sure Start centre, spoke to a lovely woman and explained our problems, which were about latching and trying to understand routines.

Unless people have someone who can sit them down and talk them through it, they do not really know what they are doing. As a new parent who did not really know what I was doing, my instinct was to think, “I’m probably doing it badly and wrong.” We went to the Sure Start centre, and it was lovely and welcoming. We sat down and had a conversation with somebody. We went through what we were worried about, and we were reassured that the anxiety we were experiencing as new, young parents was perfectly normal and in line with everybody else’s expectations and understanding. Somebody there was a lifeline for us, and we were signposted to a room down the corridor and told when we could pop by again and have another conversation with somebody who had a level of expertise and who could offer support.

The model that we are now rerunning in Stoke-on-Trent has benefits. Looking at some of the data coming out of Bentilee in particular, we can see that there are improvements in the attainment levels of children starting school who have been through the programme, who have interacted with some of the schemes and who have accessed the maintained school nursery at the same site. I know the Minister will be aware of the importance of maintained nursery schools—those teacher-led facilities that really get to the crux of the problem in some of the communities that are the hardest to deal with.

Alongside the family hub, I welcome all the work that the Government are doing in this area. There is a breakfast club at the Co-op Academy Grove school in Northwood. Mrs Carrigan and I were there one morning as it was starting, and I noticed not just that children were coming in to have a hot breakfast, which was reassuring and welcome, but that they were interacting and talking to each other. In fact, the staff told me that the most popular thing that the young boys do after they have their breakfast is to go and play with the playdough. They do not want to play electronic games; they want to build and model stuff. As a result, the staff are looking at setting up a science, technology, engineering and maths group, because they can see that that is where some of the young people want to go.

Mrs Carrigan told me that the children were also more settled; because they have come into school slightly earlier, have had their breakfast and taken off their coats, when the day starts they are ready to start learning from the moment the bell goes, which means those vital  minutes in the morning are used for teaching, not for trying to calm down a class of 30 children who are a little bit all over the place. We cannot underestimate how much those minutes accrue over the course of a year and how much time can be brought back for education purposes.

Fundamentally, the challenges I face in Stoke-on-Trent, and that other Members have eloquently articulated in their own communities, stem from the fact that the attainment rate for the best start to life in places like Stoke-on-Trent is not as great as for children in other areas because of the poverty levels. Whether we call it furniture poverty, food poverty or child poverty—whatever we call it—it is poverty: young people growing up in households that simply do not have enough coming in to meet all their outgoings.

The best start in life is not only an educational issue. I appreciate that this debate is being led by the Department for Education because that is where the policy area sits, but if we want to give a child a good start in life, they need a safe, warm home that is not draughty; they need somewhere where they have the space to grow, develop and learn; and they need secure play areas where they feel comfortable to socialise and interact with their peers. They also need access to good-quality dentists, as the huge levels of tooth decay in Stoke mean that children are missing school; access to those vital health services is crucial.

Let me turn to the parenting aspect. Too many of my constituents tell me that they had a really bad experience at school, so they do not want to go back into school to get help, advice and support. For them, school was a moment of trauma—a time that they did not particularly enjoy—so being asked to go back to school, in some cases to see the same members of staff who taught them 20 years earlier, gives them the sense that they are being judged.

We need to think much more holistically and about what levers we can pull, through Government and local government, to see our aspiration of improved outcomes for young people. Education is one of those levers, but we also have to make sure that parents can access good-quality support for their own health and mental health, and good-quality jobs so that they can afford to have a good work-life balance and to spend time with their children. We need to have a think about the way in which we establish networks for young people so that, as well as the formal education setting, they can access necessary social activities, whether through formal organisations like the scouts or through sporting clubs. There has to be an opportunity for young people to socialise in the way that they are happiest to do.

Fundamentally—I know the Minister gets this because I have spoken to her about it—we have to think about the nuances for individual groups of young people, who need specific support. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) rightly pointed out that the removal of the adoption and special guardianship support fund is a particular challenge for a small but high-need group of young people. I have made my views on that known to the Minister, and I hope that her Department will look at what more can be done to support children growing up in kinship care arrangements, like I did, because they face specific challenges. This is not necessarily a poverty-related issue, but it is about accessing support services that allow them to live a fruitful childhood.

Finally, on SEND, I am proud to be a governor of the Abbey Hill special school, which is in the constituency of my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. One of the biggest challenges we face relates to EHCPs and how to give young people a particularly good chance in life. Under section I, parents can identify the particular school they want their child to go to. I agree with the Government’s plan on this; if we can keep children who have additional needs—whether that be SEND or social, emotional, and mental health requirements—in the mainstream setting with the right help and the right support, we should do so. That frees up places for the children who need that specialist, bespoke support in special schools, to a level that means everyone is in the right place.

We need to stop those mainly alternative providers, which are running huge profits, marketing their schools to children and families who are desperately in need of help and support, and saying to them, “Tell your local authority, under section I, that you want to go to this particular school”, because that means the money flows out. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent on alternative providers, normally outside of the area, and those providers get that money through marketing; they sell young people and their parents a dream of a particular type of education that they can access, regardless of the standard of that education. \p Munira Wilson: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches tried to put forward an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to extend the profit cap that the Government have proposed for children’s social care homes run by private equity firms to the special schools creaming off profits from our local authorities and denying vulnerable children the education they need. However, I am afraid that Labour Members voted against it, so will he join me in convincing Ministers to think again while the other place is considering the Bill? \p Gareth Snell: I would not say that the hon. Lady’s intervention was helpful to me, but she has made her point. The Government have been quite clear that we must look at how some alternative provision and specialist independent providers are making huge profits off the back of some of the most desperate and vulnerable children in our society, and at how local authorities need the tools to tackle that. In a new programme opening in my own city, one of the trusts that runs one of the special schools is looking to do mainstream work with some of the other trusts’ schools, but that is about getting trusts to work together. I do not remember her amendment, but I have absolute faith in the ministerial team—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I cannot honestly say that I read everything that the Liberal Democrats produce.

To move this forward slightly, I do know, and the hon. Lady will know, that the Government have been quite clear about the need to tackle the profiteering and price gouging happening in the sector. I am almost certain that the Minister will have a better answer for her than I can give her while I am speaking. That is obviously something we all agree on as a principle, and I am sure we can have a discussion another time about how we get there. However, in places such as Stoke, the  higher needs budget is being blown because thousands of pounds are being taken by these glossy brochure schools that are making huge profits, and that does not give the young people in my city the best start in life. I think it gives them false hope.

Finally, I would say to the Minister that the best start in life is about the first 1,001 days. I am very proud to chair the APPG on literacy, and I am really glad that the Department for Education has announced the year of reading. The bond of reading to your child is so important. Early years literacy, which also helps with oracy, means young people can start school with a set of skills that will help them thrive throughout their education.

The other part of this that we need to think about is how we help parents who do not have a level of literacy necessary to start reading to their children. Again, all too often in my constituency I talk to parents who want to talk about literacy, but their confidence in their own literacy skills is such that they do not feel able to do that. It would be welcome if, as part of the National Year of Reading, the Department not only helped young people and children get more into reading and enjoying books—enjoying reading for pleasure, as opposed to having to read for work as most of us do—but ensured that parents were supported to improve their literacy in a way that allows them to interact with their children for longer as their own education progresses, I know that would be a huge benefit not just in my constituency but across the whole country. \p Darren Paffey: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), although I feel I am breaking a run of excellent speeches from the Staffordshire massive. I very much welcome this debate on giving every child the best start in life. I think one thing we can agree on across all the Benches is that that is not just the title of the debate, but a moral duty. It is the measure of a Government’s values, and it is also the foundation of a thriving and fair society.

In my constituency of Southampton Itchen, the unfortunate truth is that too many children are still being held back—not by the lack of potential, but by the lack of opportunity. It is high time that that changed, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are making that change happen. My constituency is in the much vaunted London and the south-east, which we usually hear about for its wealth and prosperity, but the reality is often different in Thornhill and Weston, where one child in every three is growing up in poverty. That is not the picture of wealth that we are often lumped in with. Many children arrive at school already behind in language, health or emotional development.

There are dedicated teachers and early years professionals who do everything they can. I pay tribute to all those I have met and worked with over a number of years, first as a councillor and then in the past year as an MP visiting schools. I do not face the same height challenge as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central when visiting those schools—indeed, in some secondary schools the pupils are taller than me these days. Dedicated teachers and professionals—I know colleagues across the Chamber will also be meeting them—are working against a legacy of underfunding and fragmentation of services.

That is why I welcome the Labour Government’s plan for change and our focus on a number of policies that will help to give every child the best start in life. They include: expanding high-quality early years education; the new nursery places for children aged two to four; and the schools-based nurseries in my constituency launched at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school. I am grateful to see policies like the rolling out of free breakfast clubs in every primary school. The pilots established at St John’s primary and nursery school and St Patrick’s Catholic primary school are hugely welcome. I have visited and helped to serve breakfasts to the children. I have seen the benefits they are already enjoying of a solid start to the day. Yes, that is through the food, but also through socialising, being with their friends and getting ready to learn. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. As a fellow southern MP, I share his concern about the importance of explaining that there is real poverty across the south of England, as well as in many other parts of the country. He makes a point about the breakfast clubs, which are outstanding and he is right to say how valuable they are on a number of fronts. We have two in Reading. My fellow Reading MPs and I are very proud of them and we look forward to seeing more soon. \p Darren Paffey: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wish him every success in his constituency with the pilot breakfast clubs.

We have all welcomed in the last week a restoring—let us be honest—of Sure Start-style family hubs which will provide wraparound support for parents. From the hubs I have seen in my constituency over recent years—I know that work will build back up again—the potential for mental health support, childcare advice, toy libraries and work support are all there in those places. \p Anna Dixon: My hon. Friend is setting out, in a very eloquent way, the amazing work of the Labour Government. I am proud—I hope he agrees—of the previous Labour Government’s achievements in setting up and rolling out Sure Start. Independent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed what amazing outcomes children had later in life, with higher GCSE scores, reduced hospital admissions, improved physical health, the early identification of special needs, maternal employment and better mental health outcomes. I hope we will see the same from the new Best Start family hubs, too. \p Darren Paffey: My hon. Friend paints the picture of the crowning glory of the previous Labour Government, in the Sure Start centres, not just because they were a nice feelgood thing but because of the strong evidence of the benefits they brought. What a disgrace that year after year the Conservatives cut council budgets and shut those very centres. Despite Tory austerity that hit Southampton hard—we lost 60% of our Government grant at Southampton city council—we made the often tough decision financially but the right decision in purpose, to keep those buildings open across the city, because they were crucial centres of support for local families.

I cannot pretend that the range of services offered in those centres was the same as it was a quarter of a century ago when the previous Labour Government set them up under our admired and much-missed colleague, Tessa Jowell, but those buildings still served a purpose. That meant that when the Conservative Government, having shut so many Sure Start centres, experienced an amazing epiphany—a revelation that, actually, they were a really good idea—and reinvented them under the badge of family hubs, our former Sure Start centres were there and ready to be built back up again. I would gently remind the shadow Minister that the family hubs, while welcome, were not new, either. In the lost years between those Conservative budget cuts to children’s services and their later U-turn, far too many families in my constituency and across the country were left without those crucial services.

The Government are also investing in school improvement, particularly in areas with long-standing underachievement and where attainment gaps have remained stubborn. My view is that the upcoming curriculum and assessment review is a huge opportunity to introduce a refreshed and inspiring curriculum with manageable assessments, rather than over-assessment and high-stakes exams, and links to exciting training opportunities in the reality of jobs in the 21st century economy into the future.

As other hon. Members have said, the special educational needs and disabilities system is absolutely broken. I commend the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is no longer in her place, for leading our Committee’s inquiry on this subject. As I am sure is the case for other Members, I hear a lot from constituents in surgeries and through my inbox about situations that are in many cases avoidable, and which we must certainly work hard to avoid in the future, with children’s needs not being met because of a system that needs to be fundamentally rebuilt, described by its own architects as “lose, lose, lose”. A reformed SEND system must give every child the support they need to access school and ensure they are not excluded from the potential for success in life that every single child deserves and is capable of.

Numerous schools have fantastic and innovative practices going on, including Bitterne Park secondary school, which I visited last week, which is establishing a variety of units, specialist rooms and particular provisions within the mainstream, working towards a truly inclusive school. In reforming the SEND system—I do not underestimate or envy the task of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench here—I have asked Ministers to consider how we can scale up the good practice in many of our constituencies to end the postcode lottery and guarantee consistency across our country. These are the kinds of policies that have been announced—these are the building blocks of a much better future for children in my constituency and across the country.

If we are serious about change, we must not only welcome and consolidate the significant changes this Government are making, but commit to continual improvement. In the wind-up, I ask the Minister to address the Government’s commitment to prioritising areas like Southampton Itchen. As I have said, we may be located in the south—often assumed wrongly to be a magnet for wealth—but child poverty is  entrenched and multi-generational. We must not have a blind spot to need that is based on geographical assumptions.

Will Ministers ensure that our new Best Start family hubs are truly integrated with schools, NHS services and local councils so that they do not simply replicate past silos? Will Ministers also guarantee long-term funding? I think I know the answer, but it is always worth asking. Long-term funding that goes beyond a single Parliament—the Prime Minister has spoken for a long time now about a decade of national renewal—is not just desirable, but absolutely necessary. We need investment that ensures change is deep, not just fast.

Will Ministers have regard to support for the families that children are growing up in? We have heard from hon. Members about better parental leave. I commend the work of The Dad Shift, among others, in raising awareness of that issue.

Will Ministers also ensure that they look well down the line to not just the early years, which are a crucial foundation, but the years ahead? We must ensure that our children and young people who grow up in care have long-lasting support to thrive in life, guaranteed by meaningful and strong corporate parenting responsibilities in our public services and a national care leaver offer to close the attainment gap experienced by those who are care experienced, even up to support into training or university.

In closing, children growing up in Southampton Itchen can be hopeful about the building blocks that are going in under this Labour Government. However, they do not want or need just charity; they need a chance—a chance to thrive in life. If we get this right, and I believe that we are absolutely setting out in the right direction, we will change not just individual lives, but the future of whole communities. Therefore, when we are giving every child the best start in life, that has to mean in every single postcode in this country. \p Chris Hinchliff: We understand on this side of the House that the wealth of our country does not lie in the bank accounts of casino capitalists or the title deeds of billionaires. It lies in nature, with each chalk stream and ancient woodland a national inheritance to be cherished; it lies in the bonds of community that held strong even through the years of politically imposed austerity; and, perhaps most importantly, it lies in our young people—in their talents and their hopes that shape our collective future. The benefits of a Labour Government have been most pronounced when translating into policy the belief that, for Britain to succeed, we must give all young people, whatever their background, the opportunity to fulfil their true potential.

I welcome the fact that Hormead Church of England first and nursery school in my constituency is among the first to benefit from our breakfast club programme. Together with the expansion of free school meals, these policies go some way to ensuring that no child’s learning or health is held back by hunger.

Just as central to early years development is the vital importance of every child having decent housing. We need to take a holistic approach to health, welfare and  education, which recognises that a secure and stable home is the foundation for everything else in life. Currently, there are 164,000 children in temporary accommodation across the country—a record high. This means families in overcrowded conditions, children forced to travel long journeys to school and a situation which, all too often, is anything but temporary.

I welcome the Government’s £39 billion funding announcement for the affordable homes programme. The commitment to allocate 60% of this to social housing could make a real difference. To ensure that children growing up today have the best start in life, it is vital that as many of those homes as possible are built during this Parliament. Above all, we need a new generation of council housing, built to meet the needs of those that a profit-led sector will never provide for.

This will require upfront investment and difficult choices about other projects that must fall by the wayside, but we cannot ignore the human cost of delay. This is not a static problem—a building simply waiting to be repaired. Childhood does not pause. Leaving hard-working families to raise their children in cramped, mouldy accommodation with precious little space to play or learn is no way to nourish the future of our country.

Shelter is clear: we need 90,000 social homes a year for 10 years to address the affordable housing crisis, and I will keep making the case to relevant Ministers on the need to frontload this funding package. This is not just the right thing to do morally; the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that hitting the 90,000 homes a year benchmark would return billions to the public purse through lower spending on temporary accommodation, reduce benefits cost, result in less crime, and raise nearly £3 billion from the improved life chances of children. By escaping the desiccated logic of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the old lie that cuts to people equal savings, we can instead invest in our young people and, in doing so, enrich the future of our nation for all of us.

In my first year as the MP for North East Hertfordshire, I have enjoyed visiting schools and meeting students in Royston, Baldock, Letchworth, Standon, Weston and other places across my constituency. The students’ talent and optimism is always a powerful antidote to the cynicism and pettiness that can all too often pervade our politics. \p Tom Hayes: On Friday, I visited St Katharine’s primary school, where I met young people from my constituency who emphasised two really important points: first, that they want to be global citizens and a part of wider humanity focusing on the world, and, secondly, that they care deeply about nature and want to be conservers of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that our children are at their best when they are able to play the role of global citizen and can take care of the nature on our doorstep? \p Chris Hinchliff: I wholeheartedly agree and have heard exactly the same thing from students in my constituency. Each and every one of the children in our country deserves a safe, healthy and stable home that is genuinely affordable and does not leave families struggling to make ends meet month after month. If we give the next generation the security to thrive, they will do the rest. The true legacy of this Government will be found in the laughter, learning and achievement of the nation’s children. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Rebecca Paul: I am grateful to be closing this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I thank colleagues from across the House for their passionate contributions, and I am going to attempt to list them all: my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and the hon. Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I also have it on good authority that the MPs from Staffordshire hunt in a pack, and after today I can confirm that they do indeed. Before I begin my speech, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive is something that cuts to the very heart of why many of us were drawn to politics in the first place. We know that in those crucial early years the foundations of health, learning and wellbeing are laid for life, so it is right that we ensure that those foundations are as solid as can be.

I want to first reflect on the Conservative record on early years and families, starting with childcare. It was Conservative Governments who introduced and expanded free childcare entitlements, not just for parents of three and four-year-olds but for parents of younger children. It was a Conservative Government who launched the family hubs and start for life programme, investing £300 million across 75 local authorities to provide parenting and breastfeeding support to families when they need it so that problems can be addressed before they escalate.

We fully recognise that stable and secure families ensure the best start in life for children. That means ensuring that support is more broadly targeted than just at the child. Family hubs are a vital part of achieving this. For 14 years, our model was to have targeted investment, early help and a determination to move away from a system where postcode determines life outcomes. Nowhere is that approach more vital than in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life—from conception to age two. The science is clear: a child’s brain develops more rapidly in these years than at any other point in their life. Attachment, stimulation, nutrition and the emotional environment during this time all have lifelong implications for learning, resilience and health. Interventions in these early days can literally change life chances, and we know that failure to act compounds over time. I pay tribute to Dame Andrea Leadsom for all her excellent work on this subject.

Earlier this month, the Government published their “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. The House will be aware that the strategy’s name, scope and substance owe much to the work begun by the Conservative Government. There is much to celebrate when a new Government build on the good work of the previous one—and as the old saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The strategy identifies the very early years as a priority for the Government, which is welcome,  but I must echo the Institute for Fiscal Studies in suggesting that this strategy is a first step, not the finished article.

The Government’s approach to family hubs is a good example of what I mean by that. It is welcome that the Government are continuing the programme, with a further £69 million announced in the autumn Budget and £57 million in Start for Life funding for 2025-26. The goal of rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority is certainly ambitious and something to be welcomed, but there is one important point I want to make. Even with this new funding, spending on integrated early years services will be remain at less than one third of what was spent on Sure Start at its peak. Family hubs are being asked to do more, serving children up to the age of 19, but with far fewer resources per child. If this Labour Government want it to be Sure Start 2.0—and I truly hope they do—they may need to be more ambitious with their funding plans. If the Government want to build on the solid foundation they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, they must guarantee long-term investment, retain high-quality staff and ensure that hubs are universal in reach but suitably targeted in mission.

Before I move on from hubs, I welcome the fact that each one is promised a SEND-trained staff member who can deliver practical and well-informed help to families navigating what is a complex system. As we in the House all know, SEND is a big issue. I am all too aware from casework in my constituency that the families of SEND children are too often left fighting against the very system that should be fighting for them.

Early identification of SEND is still inconsistent, and when that diagnosis is eventually made, EHCP needs assessments and much needed support are often delayed too. Disappointingly, Ministers have refused to rule out scrapping ECHPs outside special schools, despite over 300,000 children currently relying on them in mainstream settings. That has triggered real fear among families and professionals alike. More than 110,000 people have signed a petition opposing these changes, yet to date Ministers have offered no firm reassurance that no child will lose the legal right to the support they need. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to provide some clarity and reassurance to those worried parents.

Looking at the Government’s approach in the round, the “best start in life” strategy contains much that the Opposition welcome in principle, such as more family hubs, the expansion of funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents of children from nine months old, thousands more nursery places and the development of a digital offer. However, if we are seeking to ensure that every child has the best start in life, a key ingredient must be the provision of high-quality education: the very provision that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill seeks to sabotage.

Far from ensuring that schools can serve as a foundation for success in the early years, Ministers have led an attack on school standards by undermining the academies that have led the way on school improvement for decades. If the Government get their way, academies will no longer be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status from non-traditional backgrounds and will be forced to follow the same national curriculum as other schools. Those measures will risk the progress  made during three decades of cross-party consensus on academies. It is nothing less than educational vandalism. If any Member of the House doubts that fact, they need only pay a visit to Labour-run Wales. After 26 years of Labour in power, Wales finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science.

The Government cannot even bring themselves to ban smartphones in schools—something so simple yet so effective in improving a child’s wellbeing and educational outcomes. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) introduced a Bill that would have done just that. I applaud him for doing so and for the strong cross-party consensus he built up. It is shameful that much of his work was undone by a Government who insisted on watering down his Bill and burying their heads in the sand to the harms. A Government who refuse to act against that danger give me cause for concern about their commitment to offering children the best start in life.

I will conclude by making an observation on nurseries, which face extreme financial pressure because of decisions taken by the Government. The lack of compensation for the employer national insurance contribution increase is forcing nurseries and childcare providers to either hike fees, opt out altogether from offering funded places or close down entirely. I ask the Minister to ponder what use any number of policies aimed at supporting nurseries and increasing funded places will be if the Treasury is driving nurseries into the ground with tax hikes before those policies have even started. \p Janet Daby: I am grateful to the many hon. Members who participated in this debate on such an important subject. I will refer to hon. Members as I progress through my closing speech. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the strong representation from Staffordshire.

The passion and enthusiasm that came through in hon. Members’ contributions demonstrates the importance of early years and the Government’s plan for change. We know that we have an obligation to break down barriers to opportunity. The Government will not stand by while families, parents, carers and children are indeed struggling. \p Luke Myer: Breaking down barriers to opportunity and giving children the best start in life is one of the Government’s defining missions, so I welcome the steps that have been taken to expand free school meals, roll out free breakfast clubs and establish the child poverty taskforce. Does the Minister agree that when that taskforce reports in the autumn, it is really important that it recommends things like lifting the two-child limit, which would make such a difference to so many families? \p Janet Daby: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the significance of the Government’s work, the important issue of poverty, and the need to keep on making sure that the Government drive out poverty and meet the needs of children across our country.

As we have set out today, our “best start in life” strategy outlines the immediate steps this Government are taking to expand and strengthen family services, to make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable for parents, and to improve the quality of early education and childcare. However, those are just the first steps in putting the early years back at the heart of how we deliver stronger outcomes for our children, our families and our society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke about righting the wrongs of the previous Government. He spoke about the cuts to Sure Start services and youth services and a little bit about the deep-rooted cuts of the previous Tory Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) spoke about Sure Start and her close connection to it. I applaud her for all her work in that area and for her campaigning work as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) also spoke passionately about meeting children’s health, physical and psychological needs, and I look forward to meeting her.

I hope that Members are reassured that the long-term vision we have set out will transform life chances and give our children better opportunities than we had. We know without doubt that Sure Start worked; it raised exam results, improved early identification and boosted physical and mental health. It reached disadvantaged families and made a difference to their lives. Our Best Start service will honour its proud legacy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke about Sure Start, the evidence of its success, children’s achievements and how it had been stripped away by the last Government. I could not agree more. This Government will introduce a new Best Start family service delivered through Best Start family hubs. That will be the first step towards a national family service to ensure families can get the right support for their children. \p John Slinger: Does the Minister agree that access to the creative arts, particularly music—I speak as a musician, so I am biased—should be available to everybody and especially young people, and that such access could be provided through the Best Start family hubs? The evidence is abundant of its positive effect on cognitive ability, hard and soft skills, teamwork, and joy within life, and it could have a profoundly positive effect on our young people as they grow up. \p Janet Daby: I do not know anybody who does not enjoy some type of music. Children must have the experience of enjoying music, and I cannot imagine a family hub that does not have some type of musical instrument. This Government encourages the creative arts and music, and will continue to do so. Indeed, my own daughter is learning how to play the guitar.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned that every child deserves the best start in life, and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said that this is a cross-party issue. I could not agree more. I also reassure the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we support, and will support, parents, including single parents, and carers. This Government want to give children the very best start in life, hence the strategy and what we are introducing and speaking about this afternoon. \p Matt Rodda: Is it not the point that there should be a shared national mission to invest in young people? As was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the evidence is clear that £1 invested in a very young child, aged less than five, is worth £16 invested later in their life. The purpose of our work in this field in the public sector, and with partners in the voluntary sector, should be to support very young children to have the very best start in life. \p Janet Daby: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is nothing to disagree with there.

Hubs will be open to all, with funding for these services in every single local authority. They will work with nurseries, childminders, schools, health visitors, libraries and local voluntary groups to provide joined-up support to parents in the community. Each hub will have trained professionals to support parents and children who have additional needs. A new Best Start digital service will mean that parents can instantly access all the trusted advice and guidance that they need, whenever they need it. \p David Williams: The Minister rightly identified that voluntary sector groups are in the mix. Many of those organisations have been rooted within their communities for many years, and they continued to deliver high-quality services even when the cuts came along. Can we please look to ensure that the work of those groups really forms part of the offer and does not get replaced, because they are rooted in the communities and often know their communities best? \p Janet Daby: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I remember that, soon after becoming a Minister, I met many voluntary and community organisations, and one of the first things I did was to really thank them for all of the services and support they provided during really tough times under the previous Government. Some people had watery eyes as I acknowledged the significance of the work that they had been doing and that they continue to do as they contribute to the needs of our society and some of our most vulnerable children. \p Darren Paffey: I am delighted to hear that each of these Best Start family hubs will have a fully trained and professional SEND co-ordinator to support families. Could the Minister say a bit more about how she envisages those co-ordinators working in partnership with local education, health and local authority partners to avoid silo thinking? \p Janet Daby: I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he connects up the various agencies and Departments and points out the significance of working in close partnership. That is absolutely the right way forward.

This Government are delivering our promise to parents, providing more support to working families than ever before. We are delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of childcare a week for working families, backed by Government funding, which we expect to reach £9 billion from next year. This will save families an average of £7,500 a year and give parents, especially mothers, the freedom and choice to work. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I have visited many primary schools in my constituency,  and I am sure many Members have done the same, but I want to encourage them to visit their new Best Start family hubs as well.

Quality matters when it comes to early education and childcare. A high-quality setting is what all parents should expect for their child, but a great early years education starts with great people, and that is why we are backing the people who care for and teach our youngest children. We will raise the status of our workforce and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, all staff matter. We will introduce a new professional register. We will train more early years teachers, because we know that their impact is significant. We will double the number of stronger practice hubs and build strong links between settings and schools, so that educators can share best practice and provide the best possible care. \p Tom Hayes: When I talk with parents and guardians in Bournemouth East, they described the EHCP process as being adversarial and almost designed to exclude. They want a greater role earlier on in the design of their child’s EHCP. Does the Minister agree that that is an important thing that we should be seeking to achieve? Would she also agree that, as we take forward SEND reform, it is important to have families at the heart of that process? \p Janet Daby: Absolutely; we need to make sure that there is full consultation and involvement so that people and parents feel that their voices are being heard. My hon. Friend has pre-empted me: I am now moving on to EHCPs, which is convenient.

This Government are clear that the current SEND system is difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate and is simply not delivering the outcomes we want. While we have announced that the details of our long-term approach to SEND reform will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn, we are clear that any changes we make will improve the support available to families, stop parents having to fight for support, and protect the effective provision that is currently in place.

We know that many parents feel the only way their child can get the support they need is through EHCPs. However, independently commissioned insights published last year showed that extensive improvements to the system using early intervention and better resourcing of mainstream schools could have a significant impact. \p Edward Morello: I am grateful for the Minister stressing the importance of support for children with SEND. At Dorset studio school in West Dorset, 52% of children have SEND—children who would struggle in mainstream education. Funding for improvements to its site was agreed in 2023, but has still not been released. Could the Minister say anything about that? \p Janet Daby: I thank the hon. Member for sharing that information. I will ask the Minister for Early Education to contact him.

There will always be a legal right to the additional support that children with SEND need, and it will be protected. This Government are prepared to grasp the nettle and reform a broken system set up by the Conservatives, which, as we heard, they themselves  described as, “Lose, lose, lose.” We will ensure that every child in this country gets the opportunity to achieve and thrive at school and to get on in life. We are carefully considering how to address and improve the experience of the EHCP process for families and are reflecting on what practices could or should be made consistent nationally. We are fully committed to working with families, experts and the sector to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered in partnership with them. \p Gareth Snell: I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. One area of concern that parents of children who have an EHCP have raised with me is where there are multiple and complex issues—for example, there is a health issue under one criterion, an education issue under another, or a behavioural or developmental issue under the third criterion—the EHCP will only fund the primary driver of need. Therefore, children sometimes may get the support they need for one particular element of their additional needs, but not the support elsewhere. Will the Minister assure parents in my constituency and across the country that when the Government look at the review and in whatever system that may come next, that holistic view of the child and how their complex and interdependent needs are looked after are at the centre of that? \p Janet Daby: I thank my hon. Friend for raising a significant point that I am sure parents find difficult to grapple with. I will ensure that the points he has raised are passed on to the relevant Minister.

We are reviewing early years SEND funding arrangements to assess how suitable the current arrangements are for supporting the needs of children with SEND. As I have already mentioned, details of the Government’s intended approach to SEND reform, including early years, will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn.

Improving health and education go hand in hand, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) was absolutely correct when he talked about health, wealth, education and accommodation. The previous Government left no light task, and despite what the Conservatives say and how they say it, this Government are getting on with the job of fixing the foundations and putting right what is broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) spoke about mental health, breakfast clubs and other areas to do with health. He also spoke about the crowning glory that was Sure Start, which was pleasing to hear. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) spoke positively about breakfast clubs and free school meals. We know that healthier children are more able to learn and that children who achieve in education go on to live healthier lives.

The change outlined in the “best start in life” strategy is firmly aligned with the three radical shifts set out in the Government’s 10-year health plan—hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. The Best Start family hubs are an important part of the move to neighbourhood health.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) spoke about the inheritance of a poor school building from the previous Government. Again, I will raise that with the Minister for Early Education.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) spoke passionately about the welfare of children, wraparound support and advice, to which the Government are committed. We are committed to achieving the best start in life for children.

Let me end by saying that the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire spoke so eloquently about wanting children to laugh, to learn and to achieve. I absolutely agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of giving every child the best start in life. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I rise to present a petition about Horspath outreach post office and to urge the Government to take urgent action following its closure in March 2025 and the retirement of the postmaster in nearby Great Milton. The outreach post office served as a vital community hub for residents. Many older and more vulnerable villagers now face significant barriers to accessing essential postal and banking services.

Over 600 residents—over half the village—have signed the petition, which shows just how important this is to them. I was happy to join Judy, Rebecca, Sheila, Shelagh and Anna to present this petition to 10 Downing Street. They join Sue and Derek in the Public Gallery today. I thank them, among others, for their hard work and dedication in bringing forward this petition.

It cannot be right that the retirement of a long-serving and dedicated postmaster is used as an excuse to cut services. The Post Office has a duty to residents of Horspath and should fulfil it. I hope that the Government and the Post Office will now take notice of the residents of Horspath and work together with them to ensure that residents can once again access those postal services.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to reopen Horspath Outreach Post Office.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that Horspath Outreach Post Office should be reopened, further notes that since its closure on 28th March 2025 there has been a significant negative impact on residents who previously used the post office services; further declares that it has impacted elderly people, parents and those with mobility issues or without a car's ability to access services; further declares that local businesses including Horspath Hub and the Senior Residents Club have been impacted; notes that the Outreach Post Office ran alongside successful community events like coffee   mornings; and provided a central community for locals; further notes that the two sub Post Offices 3 miles from Horspath are insufficient to deal with the needs of the community; further notes that a Sub-Postmaster has been found to run the Outreach Post Office; further declares that the Post Office Ltd. should review its reasons for closing the Post Office.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to reopen Horspath Outreach Post Office.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003085] \p Sojan Joseph: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are deeply frustrated by the regular deployment of Operation Brock. The decision by Kent county council and the Kent and Medway resilience forum to queue freight lorries on the M20 during the school holidays causes severe disruption for local residents and businesses, and is hugely expensive. My constituents do not object to Brock being deployed in emergencies, and reassurances were given that that would happen. However, it is still being regularly deployed as a precautionary measure, and it will come into force once again later this week.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Transport Select Committee to launch an inquiry into the decisions taken by Kent County Council and the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum to regularly deploy Operation Brock, and into what work is being undertaken to find a long-term alternative.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Ashford in Kent,

Declares that the deployment of Operation Brock by Kent County Council and the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum to queue freight lorries on the M20 causes severe disruption for residents and local businesses; further that although reassurances had been given that Operation Brock would only be deployed in emergencies, it has been used regularly as a precautionary measure; and further that a better, long-term solution needs to be found.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Transport Select Committee to launch an inquiry into the decisions taken by Kent County Council and the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum to regularly deploy Operation Brock, and into what work is being undertaken to find a long-term alternative.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003095] \p Roz Savage: I rise to present a petition on the continued existence of a GP surgery in the village of Sherston, in my constituency of South Cotswolds. I thank the 1,695 local residents who have signed a similarly worded petition, and I hope that this demonstrates to the Government this rural community’s  strength of feeling about the need for a new GP surgery to replace the existing one, whose lease will shortly expire.

The petition states:

The petition of the residents of Sherston and the surrounding villages,

Declares that the future of Sherston surgery remains uncertain; that the existing Tolsey surgery in Sherston is no longer fit for purpose; a new purpose-built facility has been offered by a developer; the integrated care board has, to date, refused to commit to operating NHS services from the proposed new premises; further declares that, without such a commitment, many residents in Sherston and its neighbouring villages are in real danger of being left without reasonable access to essential NHS primary care services.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to support the establishment and ongoing operation of a new healthcare facility in Sherston, in order to ensure continued access to NHS services for the local community.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003094] \p Markus Campbell-Savours: Maymi, James, Caleb, Riley, Noah P, Kadie, Louisiana, Mylo, Sienna, George, Penny, Ethan, Isla, Noah G, Harry, Ruby, Faye, Brad, Joe and Oliver are all children in year 6 at Stoneraise school. Like many of my constituents, they are conscious of how far away Cumbria is from Westminster. As they leave primary school later this week, their similarly worded petition calls on the Government to do more to help children like them to visit and learn about Parliament. I wish them well for the future.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that Stoneraise school is over 300 miles from London; that it is very expensive for schools in Cumbria to take their children on a residential to our capital city; further that the Government provides funding through the pupil premium and to local authorities which can help schools plan education visits, but that currently only a small proportion of pupils have the resources to be able to visit Parliament each year; further notes a petition started by Stoneraise school in Cumbria, which 155 pupils and teachers have signed, supports more Government assistance to enable them and school children across the UK to visit Parliament.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure transport, accommodation and food provision for every child to be able to visit Parliament during their time in school, so that all children can see how Parliament works for us.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003097] \p Maureen Burke: I rise to present this petition on behalf of the family of Marc Spalding. Like too many families, their lives have been devastated as a consequence of the harm caused by gambling addiction. I am incredibly moved that through their pain, Marc’s mother and sister are advocating for others who may be experiencing a similar situation.

Currently, families are not empowered to raise concerns with the appropriate authorities on behalf of a loved one struggling with a gambling addiction. This lack of  agency often leaves them feeling helpless. This petition, in addition to one that received 3,280 signatures, calls for legislative reform to strengthen the rights of family members in these circumstances.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure NHS and local authority advocacy services allow for families to advocate for their ‘at risk’ adult members and improve GP training in the area of gambling addiction utilising the proposed gambling operator levy.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the family of Marc Spalding,

Declares that legislation should be strengthened to allow family members to advocate for ‘at risk’ adults who pose a risk to their own health and safety through gambling addition with GPs and local authorities where existing advocacy services do not currently apply; furthermore the training for GPs and other agencies around identifying the signs of gambling addiction and understanding the appropriate referral routes should be enhanced using the proposed gambling operator levy.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure NHS and local authority advocacy services allow for families to advocate for their ‘at risk’ adult members and improve GP training in the area of gambling addiction utilising the proposed gambling operator levy.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003096] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Uma Kumaran: May I say how wonderful it is to have you in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker? You were in the Chair for my maiden speech, and this is my first ever Adjournment debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who is also proudly wearing the ribbon that we are wearing today.

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate and to pay tribute to the women and girls of the matchgirls’ strike of 1888. I am proudly the very first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Stratford and Bow. The boundaries may be new, but it is a part of east London with a rich and radical history that I am so proud to represent. As the granddaughter of one of Jaffna’s first ever trade unionists, I am proud to be here to speak about this subject.

In my maiden speech, I paid tribute to some of the well-known and illustrious figures who were residents of Bow. Some were household names, like Gandhi, Attlee and Annie Besant, but today I pay tribute to some lesser-known but equally powerful figures in British history: the matchgirls—the young women of the Bryant & May match factory in Bow. I am proud to have residents from Bow here in the Gallery to hear the debate, and I pay tribute to the Chisenhale ESOL Bengali ladies, who visited me earlier today.

The matchgirls were mostly very young girls—some were as young as six, but they went up to the age of 13 and beyond. They endured long hours, pitiful pay and appalling working conditions. They were fined for being late, for being untidy and even for talking. Worst of all, they were being poisoned slowly and painfully. The white phosphorus used to make the matches made them sicker by the day, giving them a condition called “phossy jaw”. The girls would dip the matches into sulphur, then into the white phosphorus mixture, and that led to that horrible disease, which caused painful abscesses, facial disfigurement, the loss of their jaw and, in some cases, a slow and painful death.

When this came to light via work with Annie Besant and in a news article, factory bosses tried to force the girls to lie. Instead, they fought back and took their futures into their hands. Some 1,400 of those brave young women walked out on strike in July 1888, and they sent a delegation right here to Parliament. Some 56 matchgirls marched from Bow to Parliament, and a group of 12 of those women met with two MPs, right outside this Chamber in Central Lobby. Their courageous act is recorded in Hansard, as Mr Cunninghame Graham asked the Home Secretary to investigate the strike and the factory’s punitive practice.

I am proud that this week, working with the Matchgirls Memorial team, who are also here in the Gallery, and my union, the GMB, we have an exhibition in this very place, which the matchgirls walked to. The strike was exactly 137 years ago this week, and it lit the spark of the new labour movement and the new trade union movement. It was a spark that ignited the fire of modern trade unionism in Britain—the same movement that  fights for our rights at work, and a movement that I am very proud to be a part of as a member of my union, the GMB. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. She is absolutely right to celebrate the strike of 1888. Does she agree that the spirit of the matchgirls lives on in our women today? An example of that in my constituency and in hers is that of the WASPI women, who refused to take the wrong done to them lying down, and fought for recognition and fair compensation. The fight that began with the matchgirls’ strike in 1888 clearly still lives on in 2025. \p Uma Kumaran: This is the first Adjournment debate that I have secured, and I am delighted to be a recipient of one of the hon. Gentleman’s famous Adjournment interventions—I have finally made it as a Member of Parliament. I certainly think that the spirit of the matchgirls reminds us that unionism and collective action have long been in the domain of women, regardless of how male-dominated the union movement or the struggle for workers’ rights may be. \p Antonia Bance: Does my hon. Friend agree that commemorating the struggle of workers, particularly women workers, is key to understanding working-class history—our history? Does she also agree that the matchgirls should be commemorated alongside industrial struggles across the country, not least those of the 19 teenage girls who were killed in the disaster of 1922 in the Dudley Port factory, the Wednesbury “Tube Town” strikes of 1913 and the 1910 women chainmakers’ strike in Cradley Heath, all of which helped to form our modern-day trade union movement? \p Uma Kumaran: I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. All Labour Members have stories of women who have shaped the struggle for working people’s rights in British history. Too often, those stories do not get told, so I am really pleased that we have a chance to hear them today.

As I was saying, the strike took place exactly 137 years ago this week, and I am proud to be in the Chamber speaking about it. The union movement is still fighting for dignity and fairness at work, and standing up for workers’ rights against mistreatment and malpractice. We owe so much to the women who came before us—the pioneers of the rights we enjoy today. They stood up against injustice, took power into their own hands, and won all the concessions they demanded from greedy factory bosses. Those women changed the course of history, and I and many other women would not be here without them. I come to the House today in that same spirit, to ask the Minister whether we will finally formally recognise the matchgirls’ role in the British trade union movement and in the advancement of the rights of women and girls in Britain.

I mentioned Mr Graham, one of the MPs who met the matchgirls in Parliament. Those MPs’ names are recorded in Hansard, but the names and voices of the matchgirls are absent, because it would be decades more before a woman first sat on these green Benches. The matchgirls’ contribution to the story of new trade unionism, British labour history, and the struggle for  rights and dignity at work is too often forgotten. That history is too often overlooked; working-class stories are left untold, and are under-represented in our curriculums and our history books. It is a history that belongs to all of us, and that we all have a responsibility to keep telling when we have the chance. \p James Asser: My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the importance of history. As my parliamentary neighbour, she will know that our part of east London has an incredibly strong labour and industrial history, but does she agree that it is so often forgotten that much of that history involved—or was led by—strong working-class women? Those women had to overcome not only class prejudice, grinding poverty and difficult social conditions, but the sexism of the time. We must do far more to shine a light on their successes and achievements, from which we all benefit today, to make sure they stay in the public memory. \p Uma Kumaran: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As neighbouring MPs, we are struggling together to get our voices heard in this place and make sure those women are recorded in history. He is a powerful advocate, and an ally in the fight for improved conditions for workers. Many descendants of the matchgirls live in my hon. Friend’s constituency today, and some even work in the Tate & Lyle factory that he is proud to represent. I take this moment to pay tribute to our joint predecessor, Lady Brown of Silvertown, who held a debate about matchgirls over a decade ago.

The history I am talking about belongs to all of us, and we have a responsibility to keep telling it. I am sad to say that the Conservative Benches are completely empty this evening. Conservative Members might try to talk down our trade unions when they are in the Chamber, but we on the Labour Benches are so proud of our industrial heritage. As such, I ask the Minister whether the Government will look at how that history is taught in schools, so that working-class stories such as those of the east end matchgirls and so many others that we have heard about today are finally heard, and that these people’s contribution to Britain is finally recognised. \p Mary Foy: This is an important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend so much for securing it. The matchgirls’ strike played a really important part in the whole of labour history and the struggles of women. In Durham, we had the Durham Women Against Pit Closures, who sustained the miners in their strike. They joined the picket lines and were key figures in their areas, and they are still around today—we saw them last week at the gala. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that the struggles of women of the past are remembered, and that they empower women of the future? \p Uma Kumaran: I could not have put it better myself. Durham is rooted in the fight for workers’ rights, and I am proud that that tradition is still continuing. My hon. Friend has long been a powerful advocate for working people’s rights and union voices in Britain. She has made a powerful point, and I thank her for her intervention.

As we honour these women and celebrate how far we have come, we also know that—in the words of another incredibly powerful woman—great is the work yet to be  done, particularly for women in today’s workforce who still struggle disproportionately with low-paid and insecure work. There are 3.9 million working women in the UK who are in severely insecure work—insecure work that creates a culture of fear and uncertainty, isolates employees, and so often leaves young women struggling financially.

Young women are more likely to work in sectors with high job insecurity. They are paid less, work fewer hours, and face last-minute shift changes. All that puts them under greater financial and emotional pressure. Young women are paid less, and are stuck in roles that are far below their potential. Over time, this chips away at their confidence, their mental health, and any sense of self-worth. When they do not feel safe to speak up about poor treatment, they start to believe that being treated unfairly is just part of the job. What is worse is that many young women do not even know their rights at work. I have worked with the Young Women’s Trust, which has told me that nearly half the women it surveyed did not know their rights in insecure jobs.

This follows women throughout our lives. When women return to work after pregnancy, their wages stagnate and they are crippled by the costs of childcare. Women are still struggling today, and that must change—which is why I was so proud to be a member of the Bill Committee considering this Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill, a Committee to which the Minister was integral. We are delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, rolling back Tory attacks on workers’ rights to have their voices heard at work, cracking down on fire and rehire practices, banning non-disclosure agreements that prevent people from speaking up about harassment and discrimination, delivering sick pay for 1.3 million of our lowest earners, enhancing workplace protections for pregnant women and new mothers, and taking on the gender pay gap. In all those ways, we are boosting living standards and workplace protections for millions.

Now, 137 years on from the matchgirls’ strike, those landmark reforms will deliver rights and dignity to a new generation of women and working people, but we must ensure that young women know their rights and that those rights are enforced. We must therefore give the fair work agency the power and resources to do its job well and ensure that the workers most at risk of exploitation and discrimination are helped to access their rights, so that our economy can finally gain from the skills and talents of young women.

I have covered a lot of ground today, and it has been a bit of a history lesson: the story of the matchgirls, pride in Britain’s working class history, pride in the story of my constituents in Stratford and Bow, and the security and dignity of young women in today’s workforce. If Members want to learn more, I encourage them to visit the Upper Waiting Hall off the Committee corridor, where the Matchgirls Memorial is hosting an exhibition right here in Parliament.

I want to thank the brilliant women in my team who have helped me to put this speech together, and who have been integral to the work we have been doing to shine a light on this subject. I pay tribute to Anna Gorrell, Niamh O’Brien and Sameeah Ahmad. Let me also thank Barbara Plant of the GMB, who is in the   Gallery today, and Penny Robinson from GMB London region, who have played an integral role in helping me along my way as a Member of Parliament.

I want to end by honouring the inspiring legacy of the women and girls of the matchgirls’ strike of 1888 by ensuring that the names of the strike and union committees are recorded in Hansard, and that their contribution to the fight for the workers’ rights that we all enjoy today is remembered. \p John Slinger: Does my hon. Friend agree that the brave actions of the matchgirls, like those of so many women trade unionists and, indeed, women throughout history, should serve as an inspiration to girls and young women in constituencies such as mine, and that they can be inspired to take action to gain the justice that they need in their lives and we need in all our lives? \p Uma Kumaran: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made a very important point.

As I was saying, I would like to ensure that the names of the strike and union committee members are recorded in Hansard, so that their contribution to the fight for the workers’ rights that we all enjoy today is remembered. They were Eliza Martin, Mary Naulls, Louisa Beck, Kate Sclater, Julia Gambleton, Ellen Johnson, Jane Wakeling, Mary Driscoll, Jane Staines, Alice Francis, Eliza Price, Mary Cummings and Sarah Chapman, whose great-granddaughter Sam is in the Gallery and has done so much to honour the incredible legacy of the matchgirls.

There is a saying: “If you want a job done right, get a woman to do it.” Never has this been truer in the fight for women’s rights than for the matchgirls, and I pay tribute to these extraordinary women. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. It might just help Members if I explain that because the debate started early, we have time for them to make speeches without having asked the Member in charge or the Minister for permission to do so. The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) is right to say that there is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) for securing this important debate on a topic that needs a greater light shining on it. I find the debate similarly emotional, having worked with women and girls throughout my career to help them find their voice. The matchgirls used their voice to uplift so much more than just their own fight; they inspired a movement behind them. I do not think that the dockers would have gone on strike the following year without the inspiration of those young women and girls, so I thank my hon. Friend deeply for bringing forward this issue today. I will be incredibly brief, because she has covered everything that needs to be said in great detail.

Without the matchstick girls, we would not have the labour movement and the Labour party that we have today, so their legacy lives on strongly. I am really proud  that young people from my summer school have been in the Gallery today. I am doing my first summer school, because one thing that really mattered to me when I got elected was making sure that the door behind me was open for working-class girls and boys. What really matters is that they saw the best of this place today. They were able to witness proceedings in the Chamber, and they were able to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hear what someone who had a modest upbringing was able to achieve in life. That inspiration comes directly from the matchgirls, some of whom were as young as 13, who went on strike in a really brave move. They risked so much—their jobs, their pay and their safety—but they were not just fighting for better pay. It was about dignity, and it was about justice for their future and for us, so I thank them deeply for keeping their resistance alive.

Every time any of us speak in here, cast a vote or try to challenge an injustice, we do so not just for today, but for those who will come after us. I think particularly of the members of my summer school, some of whom are just learning about politics and what their voice can achieve. They are spending a week devising a campaign that can change their community, which is my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages.

In closing, I would like to say that if we keep fighting for fairness, we can change the world for today, but also for those who come after us. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow for securing this debate. \p Justin Madders: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) on securing her first Adjournment debate. She has chosen a topic extremely well and, as she highlighted, it is really important that we draw attention to the incredible courage of the women who participated in the matchgirls’ strike. It is important that this House acknowledges and recognises this very important piece of British history.

As my hon. Friend touched on, these young women, many of whom were teenagers, worked in absolutely appalling conditions. We have made great advancements in working conditions in recent decades, but it was a particularly horrendous set of circumstances, even for the time. Women working at the match factory suffered from what was described as phossy jaw, a painful and disfiguring disease caused by exposure to white phosphorus. They endured 14-hour working days in overcrowded and poorly ventilated conditions, and their strike was a watershed moment. It garnered widespread public support, and ultimately forced Bryant & May to concede to their demands. It is right that the names of these courageous women are included on the parliamentary record, and I thank my hon. Friend for doing that.

As hon. Members will know, the matchgirls’ strike took place a year before the more famous London dockworkers’ dispute of 1889, which was so formative in the growth of trade unions, including of course today’s GMB union. For the record, I draw attention to my proud membership of the GMB. The organised female workforce showed those working on the docks just what was possible when workers stand up for their rights; they showed that insecurity and unfairness at work never have to be tolerated.

The labour movement is a living, breathing one and we can take inspiration from each other, including those who have gone before us in the struggle for improved working conditions. I was pleased to be able to visit the exhibition on the Committee corridor mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I highly recommend that other Members take the time to visit it and learn more about the history of these struggles. The legacy of these women is wholly remarkable. They were part of a trade union movement that achieved so much, as we can see when we look back now: discrimination protection, paid holiday entitlement, paid maternity leave, and the right to request flexible working. So many advances have come from those beginnings.

However, as has been touched on, there are still many issues of unfairness that need to be addressed today. A recent survey by the Young Women’s Trust found that 67% of women said they had faced discrimination, 37% believe they have had to endure unsafe working environments, 26% have experienced sexual harassment at work, and 50% had not received pay when off sick. I am pleased to say that we are hoping to address all those matters. My hon. Friend raised an important point about young women’s awareness of their rights at work, and it is crystal clear that we need that in order to be effective in enforcing our rights. I hope that we, as a Labour Government, will be able to trumpet that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) spoke with great passion and made the important point that the courage that these women showed was instrumental in and inspirational to the formation of the Labour party. It was not yet formed at the time of the strike, but the growth of the trade union movement and the belief that Governments at the time were not representing the interests of working people led to the formation of the Labour Representation Committee and then the Labour party itself.

We are proud to be a part of that tradition. As a Labour Government, we want to continue the work done by the matchgirls and ensure that workplaces are safe for women. The Employment Rights Bill is helping us achieve exactly that by tackling non-disclosure agreements used to cover up sexual harassment, in a development that only this week has been called world leading. We are strengthening dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers, and expanding gender pay gap action plans. As has been touched on, the pivotal role that the fair work agency will have in ensuring that existing and new rights are enforced cannot be overstated.

The Employment Rights Bill also addresses insecure work such as exploitative zero-hours contracts and the heinous practice of fire and rehire. We know from research that women are more likely to be in insecure work, with an estimated 650,000 women on zero-hours contracts, compared with 519,000 men. So the struggle continues: the work never ceases but the determination of this Government to address workers’ rights and improve protections in the workplace is undimmed.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow for her assistance on the Employment Rights Public Bill Committee. She has carried on her keen interest in this area, helping to push for improved rights at work, as well as rightly celebrating those who have had to fight for their rights in the past.

The Government’s plan to make work pay is delivering real change for millions of people. The work this Government are doing on our transformative agenda, which is led of course by a woman—the Deputy Prime Minister—shows that we are staying true to the spirit of the matchgirls and the trade union movement, and we are renewing our country so that it once again serves the interests of working people. The Employment Rights Bill is a generational leap forward in workers’ protections, and I believe it will be one of the proudest achievements of this Labour Government.

I will turn to my hon. Friend’s points on education. She will know that the Department for Education provides a statutory national curriculum that sets out the subjects and broad content to be taught in maintained schools across England. Within that framework, schools have a degree of flexibility, especially in subjects such as history. There are parts of the history curriculum that lend themselves to teaching about the matchgirls’ strike. In key stage 1, there is teaching about

“the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements”,

during which

“aspects of life in different periods”

can be taught. In key stage 3, there is the theme of ideas, political power, industry and empire in Britain between 1745 and 1901. It can also be taught as part of any local history content in the curriculum, which is particularly pertinent in my hon. Friend’s area.

By coincidence, when I spoke to my parliamentary assistant just before I entered the Chamber, he told me that he was informed of the matchgirls’ struggles during his education, and I hope that that is repeated up and down the country. Oak National Academy offers a resource on the matchgirls’ strike for year 8 pupils, and resources are also available from the Historical Association, English Heritage and the National Archives.

Turning to my hon. Friend’s points on commemoration, this country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating its national and local individuals through statues and memorials, which serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and help to bridge the gap between the past and the present. As she will know, it is not normal practice for central Government to fund such monuments, but there is a long history of memorials and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach.

Experience has shown that investors, including from the private sector, are often happy and willing to fund new memorials. Many organisations—public and private—   are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials marking a variety of incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive. Many successful memorials are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations, which are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate. \p Mary Foy: Will my hon. Friend congratulate those from Redhills in County Durham, the home of the Pitman’s Parliament—and where I have my office—which has been given money for a huge refurbishment to make it into a living heritage site? The Redhills building will provide young people with an education about what happened in the past, but will also, by showing them how to live out their heritage of the struggles of the mining communities, empower them to go on and fight as the men and women in the north-east did before them. It will be open to the public in the autumn, but I want to congratulate them on the wonderful thing they have done. \p Justin Madders: I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Redhills on that achievement. If it is opening in the autumn, I hope it will be ready for when I come and visit her in her constituency. Perhaps those involved would like to work to that as a target.

As we know, a great many people and organisations are interested in establishing memorials, and as a general rule it is for those groups to work with the relevant local planning authority and other organisations to identify a suitable site and obtain the necessary planning permissions. That said, the Government provide indirect assistance through the memorial grant scheme, which is administered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The scheme makes grants towards the VAT incurred by charities and faith groups in the construction, repair and maintenance of public memorial structures, including war memorials. The scheme has a fixed budget of £500,000 a year for this spending period. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow to correspond with the DCMS if she wishes to seek further advice on the commemoration process.

In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House, and for providing the opportunity for the names of those truly courageous and inspirational matchgirls to be forever immortalised in Hansard. That is a fitting tribute, which my hon. Friend has delivered for this House today.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 26 June, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 54.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: That the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 737), dated 26 June 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26 June, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 54.

Question accordingly agreed to.