debates/debates2025-06-24a conversation_23
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-06-24)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-06-24a conversation_23

Jim Dickson:I thank the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), for her support for the family of Simone White, who tragically died last year after drinking a free vodka shot in Laos. I hear worrying reports that the hostel where that happened is due to reopen shortly under another name. What assurance can the Minister give me and the family that everything is being done to hold those involved accountable, and to keep travellers safe from the dangers of methanol poisoning? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work for his constituents. I met Simone’s family on 14 May and, as he is aware, I met the Minister responsible in Vientiane. I will raise my hon. Friend’s point today, as a result of this question. \p Llinos Medi: Holyhead Towing in my constituency has vessels in the middle east, specifically in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. The company is keeping its crew updated to the best of its knowledge. What official advice or guidance is available for UK maritime operators working in the region? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said before, travel advice is the surest and most regularly updated advice for British nationals in the region. We changed the travel advice yesterday for Qatar, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced in the House. We hope, as he has said this morning, that there will now be greater stability in the region, that the ceasefire will hold, and that British nationals in the region will not be so concerned. Travel advice is the best place to look. \p Chi Onwurah: The all-party parliamentary group for Africa, which I chair, recently published its report on Africa’s just energy transition to accessible and renewable clean energy. What assessment has the Minister made of the report’s nine recommendations, including the recommendation on reforming carbon markets so that they work in Africa’s interests, and the recommendation on ensuring that international development funding is blended with private sector funding for investment in that transition? \p David Lammy: May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on her recent elevation? I thank her for her work on the APPG, and I assure her that we will review her report as part of our new Africa approach. \p James Cleverly: Dame Karen Pierce is one of our most senior and experienced diplomats, and I very much welcome her appointment as an envoy to the western Balkans, but since her appointment, we have heard precious little about the western Balkans from the Foreign Secretary’s Department. Can he reassure this House that we have not lost interest in the western Balkans? \p David Lammy: Having been to the region twice—I am going back soon, within the next six weeks—I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have absolutely not lost interest. Dame Karen Pierce is at the centre of that, alongside the Berlin process, which we will host later this year. \p Gurinder Josan: We recently agreed the successful UK-India trade deal, but FCDO co-ordination with India on crisis diplomacy has never been more important, particularly following the recent terrorist attack, the Air India plane crash and human rights concerns, including about the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. Can the Secretary of State explain how security co-operation and consular support are being pursued in the light of the trade deal? \p Catherine West: May I first say how deeply shocked and saddened we all were by the devastating plane crash in Ahmedabad? The Foreign Secretary visited India in his first month in office, and since then, we have agreed the groundbreaking technology security initiative and the free trade agreement, as my hon. Friend said. On human rights issues and the case of Jagtar Singh Johal,  I will meet my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), who represents the family, hopefully this week or next, when our diaries can align. \p Nick Timothy: What does it say to Britain’s allies, and to our enemies, when neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister can bring themselves to say that the strikes again Iran were right and legal? \p David Lammy: I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio every single week that I have been in office. The Prime Minister and the President of the United States have the best of relationships. That is a signal of how well our special relationship is working. \p Mike Tapp: The Iranian regime hangs gay people from cranes. It funds and arms terror groups, and arms Vladimir Putin. A regime such as that must never have nuclear weapons. What will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent it from ever achieving its goals? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the horrendous human rights record of this regime, a regime that is the worst sponsor of state terrorism in the world. \p Gregory Campbell: Can the Foreign Secretary declare from the Dispatch Box that an Iran with no nuclear weapons is now a more likely prospect as a result of the actions of the Israeli and American forces over the past 10 days? \p David Lammy: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but let me make this clear to him. Once a country has acquired the ability to enrich uranium to 60%, that scientific knowledge is there and does not go away. Ultimately, this will require a diplomatic solution. That is what President Trump is pushing for, and that is what the UK Government want to see as well. \p Andrew Slaughter: The postponed French-Saudi conference on a two-state solution may take place as early as next month. Does the Minister think it will provide the significant opportunity that he seeks for us to recognise Palestine as a state, alongside UK allies? \p Hamish Falconer: We are talking to the French and the Saudis about their plans. Obviously events in the middle east are moving quickly, but I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend has said. \p Richard Holden: Cousin marriage is often used as a cover for forced marriage. Have the Government raised the issue of the incredibly high rate of first-cousin marriage with the Pakistani Government, given that so many of those marriages are between UK and Pakistani nationals? \p David Lammy: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I was in Pakistan recently, and we discussed a range of human rights issues. \p Richard Burgon: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Colombia and South Africa, as co-chairs of the Hague Group, have called an emergency ministerial conference in defence of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people, to take place in Bogotá in July. Countries across the world are confirming their attendance. Will the UK Government send a representative, and join nations around the world in standing up for international law? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend will recognise that we, alongside our partners throughout the global community, continue to raise serious issues relating to the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, and of course I will look in detail at the conference to which he has referred. \p Mark Pritchard: Melia, Gvaramia, Badri Japaridze, Khazaradze, Zurab Japaridze and Vashadze: all six opposition leaders arrested over the last two weeks in Georgia. What are the British Government going to do about it, and what is the message from the British Government to the Georgian people, who are suffering as a result of this huge democratic backsliding? \p Stephen Doughty: The Georgian people have made clear their Euro-Atlantic aspirations. We absolutely condemn not only those arrests of opposition politicians, but the closing down of civil society space. I have communicated my concerns directly to Georgian Dream in recent weeks, and will be doing so again. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I wish to make a short statement about the text of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. After the Bill was published last Wednesday, a small error was spotted in the text, concerning a cross-reference between subsections in clause 5. I am satisfied that the error is sufficiently minor to authorise a corrected print of the Bill, which will be available in the Vote Office and online after this statement. The substantive proceedings on the Bill are not affected in any way by the change, and no matters of order arise. \p Pat McFadden: Today the Prime Minister attends the opening day of the NATO summit. That summit is expected to agree to a new commitment to grow spending on national security to 5% of GDP by 2035—to be made up by a projected split of 3.5% on core defence spending, and 1.5% on broader resilience and security spending. This will mark a new resolve among NATO members to make our countries stronger and, as we have always done, the United Kingdom will play our part.

NATO’s member countries meet at a time when the security situation is more in flux than at any time in a generation—a time when Ukraine is in its fourth year of resisting Russia’s invasion; a time when we in Europe are being asked to do more to secure our own defences; a time when security involves not just the traditional realms of air, sea and land, but technology, cyber and the strength of our democratic society; and, as we have seen in recent days, a time of renewed military action in the middle east, with Israel and the United States acting to try to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. News of a ceasefire is welcome, but as we have seen, even in recent hours, the situation remains fragile and the focus must now be on a credible plan to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

It is to the great pride of my party that NATO was founded in the aftermath of the second world war with the strong support of the post-war Labour Government. Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary at the time, said that

“we must face the facts as they are.”—[Official Report, 22 January 1948; Vol. 446, c. 386.]

Today, in this very different age, we too must face the facts as they are.

The generation that founded NATO saw it as a powerful expression of collective security and solidarity: alliances abroad, matched by capacity at home. Our national security strategy, published today and made for these very different times, is inspired by those same values and aims. Every Member of this House understands that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. That is and always will be our No. 1 priority, and our national security strategy sets out how we will do that.

The world has changed fundamentally and continues to change before our eyes. This is indeed an age of radical uncertainty, and the challenge to leadership in times of such change is to understand, to respond and to explain. The British people understand this. They recognise that we are living in a world that is more confrontational, more turbulent and more unpredictable than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes.

When the Prime Minister spoke to the House in February, he promised to produce a national security strategy that would match the scale of the task ahead. The strategy we have published today does that, with a plan that is both clear-eyed and hard-edged about the challenges that we face. It sets out a long-term vision for how we will do three crucial things. First, we will protect security at home by defending our territory,  controlling our borders and making the UK a harder target for our enemies—one that is stronger and more resilient to future threats.

Secondly, we will promote strength abroad. That means bolstering our collective security, renewing and refreshing our key alliances, and developing new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. It also means taking a clear-eyed view of how we engage with major powers such as China in order to protect our national security and promote our economic interests, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a further statement on the China audit shortly.

Thirdly, we will increase our sovereign and asymmetric capabilities by rebuilding our defence industries, training our people, focusing investment on our competitive strengths, and using our exceptional research and innovation base to build up advantages in new frontier technologies.

All this will make us a stronger and more resilient country, but delivering on each commitment will be possible only if all parts of society are pulling in the same direction. Our manufacturing, science and technology industries have to be aligned with national security objectives. Our industrial strategy, published yesterday, will help play to the UK’s strengths and deepen our capabilities. The investments we announced in the spending review also deepen our resilience and strength as a country, with a health service strong enough to cope, safe and secure energy supplies, modern housing and transport for our people, all of which contribute to a strong United Kingdom.

That is why it is so important that all parts of Government and businesses big and small understand that cyber-security is national security, and that our core systems and the revenues of business are being targeted by our adversaries. It is why we as legislators have to ensure that our own laws—from borders to trade—fit with national security. This will take a whole-system approach that reflects today’s reality. National security means strong supply chains, controls on immigration, tackling online harm, energy security, economic security and border security. It transcends foreign and domestic policy, and it all plays a role in how we make Britain a safer, more secure and more sovereign nation.

This document provides the blueprint of how this fits together. The strategy brings together everything we are doing across the full spectrum of national security: the commitment to spend that 5% of our domestic economic output on national security by 2035, meeting our NATO commitments once again; the over £1 billion we are investing in a new network of national biosecurity centres; how we are stepping up in areas such as cyber capability; our anti-corruption strategy to counter illicit finance; the expansion of our legal and law enforcement toolkit; the largest sustained investment in our armed forces since the cold war; our plan for defence investment to unlock real benefits for working people; how we will prioritise NATO explicitly in our defence planning; a vision for not only deepening our alliances with the United States and the European Union, but growing our relationships with other emerging nations; the money we are investing in our brilliant research and development base over the coming years, such as the £750 million for the supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh; and  our ambition to gain a competitive advantage in cutting-edge technologies and to embed national security in our artificial intelligence agenda.

We do not underestimate the size of this task. The world is a more dangerous place than at any time since the end of the cold war, yet it is also a place where Britain’s values, capabilities and alliances can make a positive difference. Since we came to power, we have taken step after step to prepare Britain for what lies ahead: record investment in defence, backing our allies, and resisting the false choices put before us that would only have weakened our country. Today’s strategy represents an important contribution to all that work. It recognises that our long-term growth, prosperity and living standards all depend on national security becoming a way of life for people and businesses in the UK. This is a plan for how we protect the British people. It is a plan for today’s times, but rooted in long-held values. It is a plan to defend our national interests, deepen our international alliances and increase our sovereign capabilities, and I commend it to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement and of the strategy.

Protecting our country from internal and external threats to keep the British people and our interests safe is the No. 1 priority for any Government. As a former Home Secretary, I have seen at first hand the incredible efforts of our security and intelligence services to keep us safe. So much of their work will never be disclosed, but I know that the whole House will join me in thanking them for all they do, alongside our police, counter-terrorism operations, the armed forces and all those who work so hard to keep Britain safe.

His Majesty’s Opposition will always work constructively with the Government in the national interest, especially in the current global climate when threats are increasingly complex and multifaceted. Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, non-state terrorist actors and transnational criminals all pose a significant threat to us all. That is why we welcome actions that build on the measures we put in place in government, including our National Security Act 2023, which gives us increased oversight of adversarial action and introduced the foreign influence registration scheme.

The statement and the strategy refer to the three pillars of security at home, strength abroad, and increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities, and I will take each in turn. On security at home, protecting critical national infrastructure must be a key component of any national security strategy. How will that work in practice? What resources will be provided? What further steps are being taken to protect people on British soil from transnational repression? With China placing bounties on the heads of people in our own country and both the NSS and the strategic defence review highlighting the threats posed by China, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that China will be placed on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will the Government drop their support for the China super-embassy spy hub?

On projecting our strength abroad, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned today’s NATO summit, and the commitment to increase what he calls national security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% on core defence. But he does not have a plan to get to 3%, let alone the 3.5%. It is all smoke and mirrors, so when will he deliver a plan to get to 3%, and why will he not heed our calls to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament? That would be a vital stepping stone on the way to the higher defence spending he is seeking. Will the Government give clear information on exactly what spending will be included in the 1.5% target? Is there any new money, and does this, for example, include the costs of Sizewell, as we heard recently?

As well as increasing spending, we need to develop a tougher edge for a dangerous world. Given the security threats that we continue to face, will Labour’s £30 billion Chagos surrender treaty be scrapped? It undermines our national security, and contrary to the Prime Minister’s claim, our loss of sovereignty has been publicly backed by representatives of the regimes in China, Russia and Iran. The costs also hoover up money that we could spend on much-needed defence capabilities at this incredibly dangerous time.

On increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain what support will be given to private enterprise and what investment will support efforts in this area? I also note that the words in the Government’s strategy do not quite align with their broader action—for example, the decision to allow the Chinese firm Mingyang to provide wind turbines for large wind farm projects in the UK. Does he acknowledge the need to protect our energy infrastructure from such potential malign activity, and if so, what concrete steps have been taken to increase the very resilience of our own infrastructure?

Finally, on the important role of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and of parliamentary oversight, we understand that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has not been made available to the Committee for questioning. The Government have claimed that it would not be appropriate for him as a special adviser to answer questions from the Committee. However, in this case, it is more than clear that Mr Powell’s role as the National Security Adviser puts him in a unique position—a unique senior position—and it appears that, as the lead adviser for the Government’s national security strategy, it is only right that the Joint Committee be able to put questions to him. Given the important issue here, and Mr Powell’s senior role and central position, will the Government finally let him give evidence to the Committee to allow it to undertake its important work?

We will always work to support the defence and security of Britain, and engage constructively with Ministers and challenge them to do everything possible to keep us safe, so I welcome the chance for these questions to be answered today. \p Pat McFadden: Let me express my gratitude to the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, the spirit in which she put her questions and her welcome for at least broad parts of the strategy we have published today. Let me turn to the questions she has asked and try to address them.

On the resources to protect people, we made our commitment to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. Unlike the Conservative party, we said exactly how we would pay for that, even though it meant a very difficult choice on this side of the House. On the FIRS scheme, the right hon. Lady will be aware that Iran and Russia have been placed on the enhanced tier. She asked about our approach to China. This is a serious question and we must have a serious approach to it. The Conservative party, during its time in government, veered between the naivety of the so-called “golden era” to, in effect, no engagement at all. We believe that both were the wrong approach. Instead, our approach will be marked by a desire to protect our national security and to promote our economic interests; total disengagement is not a good option for the UK, so we will be guided by both. The Foreign Secretary, as I said, will make a fuller statement on China shortly.

The right hon. Lady asks what might be included in the 1.5%. It will include such things as cyber-security, border security and telecoms infrastructure. To those who ask what those things have to do with defence, let me be clear: our opponents and our enemies know that they are part of national security, and we should recognise that, too.

Finally, we have resisted the Opposition’s pleas for us to choose between our allies. In resisting that, I believe we have a strategy that makes our country stronger and enhances Britain’s capabilities. That is at the heart of the strategy we put today. Indeed, we made a conscious choice to increase investment in the country’s future capabilities at the spending review. This will give us increased strength in the future. The spending we have committed to is funded, it is set out in the spending review and that is the approach we will take in the future, too. \p Roger Gale: I call the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. \p Matt Western: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I totally agree that defence and security have to begin at home, in the home and in the workplace. This is a very welcome comprehensive national security strategy, given its wide-ranging assessment of all the threats we face, in defence, security, critical national infrastructure and so on. An impressive number of workstreams have fed into it—AUKUS, the SDR, the resilience review and so on—but there was no mention of the National Security Council. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what he is doing to ensure that there is a coherence across the strategy that will herald a cultural change in how this country faces security? \p Pat McFadden: I thank the Chair of the Joint Committee for his question. I should have said, in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, that I hope to reach a resolution with the Committee soon on the matter of appearances before it. I am always happy to appear before the Committee, if invited. The Chairman of the Joint Committee is quite right to say to the House that publishing strategies is one thing, but there must be follow through. The difference between this and some other documents produced is that it is a whole-system approach, looking at sovereign capability, international  alliances and making our country a harder target for our enemies. All three of those must be brought together and followed through in a systematic way. \p Roger Gale: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the Government’s national security strategy, because we recognise that we are living in a world that is less stable and more insecure now than at any time since the end of the cold war. Putin’s forces continue to wage their war in Ukraine, the middle east is teetering on the precipice of a fully-fledged regional war, and the actions of the United States under an unreliable President Trump are putting an enormous strain on the post-war settlement from which we have benefited so much.

The nature of the threats we face continues to evolve, as has become immensely clear to millions of people across the country with the recent cyber-attacks on Marks and Spencer and the Co-op, and in other countries we have seen attempts by authoritarian states to meddle in free and fair elections. That is why we welcome so much of what is contained in the strategy. It is also why the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, although we have urged Ministers to go further.

Given the new NATO target of 5% of GDP, will the Government now urgently convene cross-party talks to establish a consensus on how to get there? We need to show our adversaries we are serious about that commitment. The strategy also has a welcome focus on resilience, something especially important given not just the scale of the threat we face but its varied nature. Will the Minister look at steps taken by our allies such as Estonia to inform their populations about how to deal with those threats, should they arise? To reflect the threat posed to our democracy by hostile actors, will he make protecting our democracy a national security priority? I also note the importance that the review places on sovereign independent capabilities. Is that an admission from the Government that, under President Trump, the United States is no longer a reliable ally? Will the assessment be carried over into defence procurement, where we look to maintain an inextricably close bond with the United States? \p Pat McFadden: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Let me try to go through some of the issues she raised. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the recent cyber-attacks on Marks and Spencer, the Co-op and the legal aid system. They show what both state and non-state actors can do, and they show how important it is that we strengthen our cyber-capabilities and our cyber-defences as much as possible. In terms of being serious, the actions we have taken so far since the election show that we are serious. We have a plan in place to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP this Parliament. It took a very difficult decision to do that, but at the spending review we showed exactly how that would be paid for. On her reference to the United States, it remains a strong, reliable, deep and important ally for the United Kingdom. The relationship between us helps to protect the British people every day. \p Emily Thornberry: In the absence of the published China audit, which we have all been looking forward to so much, the national security strategy has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by many of us. On China, it states:

“Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.”

May we have some guidance on how we will address that, because that is not entirely clear? In particular, what advice is being given to the nations and regions when they are dealing with our third-biggest trading partner, with whom we need to promote but also protect ourselves? \p Pat McFadden: I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. If people look at page 39 of the document, they will see many references to China, and I referred to the statement that the Foreign Secretary is going to make. On our advice to people, as I said, it is guided by the protection of our security interest and the promotion of our economic interest. She refers specifically to the devolved Governments and the nations and regions. We did arrange a recent security briefing for the First Ministers at the time of the recent meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions, because we agree it is important to bring them into our thinking and help them play their role in protecting our national security interest, too. \p Jeremy Wright: The right hon. Gentleman’s long experience will tell him that sometimes in government the grander the language the less significant the actual announcement. But if on this occasion—I am perfectly prepared to accept that this is so—the Government are making a serious effort to redraw the boundaries of what is national security policy and what is not, does he agree that we need matching parliamentary scrutiny of that area of policy? As he knows, the Intelligence and Security Committee is the only Committee with the necessary clearances to look at classified material. Does he think that this is a good moment to look again at the memorandum of understanding between the Committee and the Government about what the Committee covers? \p Pat McFadden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the document is distinguished by a broader view of national security, which is also reflected in the discussion at NATO today, where we are looking beyond our core defence expenditure on our armed forces to the other things we have discussed that contribute to our national security. I thank the Intelligence and Security Committee for its work in all its iterations over the years. I have a good dialogue with the Committee. I look forward to that continuing, and to the Committee playing its very important role. \p Alex Ballinger: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s focus on building up our armed forces in this more uncertain world, but is it not also vital for our national security that we focus on preventing conflict? Bringing sides together to negotiate and mediate can stop conflict spilling over and allow our armed forces to focus on the serious threats he has identified in the national security strategy. It is for that reason that former military chiefs, heads of the Security Service and Select Committee Chairs last week wrote a letter to  the PM calling for investment in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Will the Minister commit to using all the tools in our kitbag, including peacebuilding and conflict prevention, to keep our citizens safe? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the deep expertise that exists in the diplomatic service, which advances our national interests in a whole range of ways every day, including in conflict resolution. I pay tribute to the work of those in our diplomatic posts and diplomatic service across the world. \p Mike Martin: If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will read a small quote from page 10:

“We will continue to abide by the important principle—shared by NATO and its key partners—that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions are inextricably linked”.

But that is not how the US views it. The Trump Administration see them as quite separate, and would prefer the United Kingdom to focus its efforts on the Euro-Atlantic. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that discrepancy? \p Pat McFadden: They are inextricably linked. While the Prime Minister attends the NATO summit today, our carrier group is in the Indo-Pacific region. It is quite right that the strategy we have published today draws attention to our responsibilities, our ambition and our determination to act in both arenas. \p Alex Baker: I welcome this national security strategy. Defence begins at home, and my community plays a role in the UK’s security and resilience with the HQ of Standing Joint Command in Aldershot. We need to focus as much on national resilience as on conventional military threats, so will my right hon. Friend share the work he has been doing on the national resilience strategy? How does it fit with the national security strategy that is in front of us today? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right that resilience and target hardening must be part of our national security strategy. Resilience is about capability and investment; we are determined to do both, and will have more to say about resilience in the coming weeks. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Before the most recent election, the Intelligence and Security Committee produced a very comprehensive report on China, making it very clear that it considers China to be one of our greatest threats. I am therefore astonished that, in the whole of today’s strategy, there are three paragraphs that deal with China, and that it raises one or two issues and then proceeds to take a different decision. It talks about there being a problem with human rights—which is genocide—and the cyber-security attacks on the UK, as well as China’s espionage, interference in our democracy, sanctioning of people like myself and undermining of our economic security, and its being guilty of transnational repression. China also ships arms to Myanmar, keeping that brutal regime in charge, at the same time as building the largest navy. To what degree do three paragraphs satisfy the idea that China should surely be in the list of threats? \p Pat McFadden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me make it clear that any sanctions on UK parliamentarians are wrong, and there is no place for them. The paragraphs he refers to set out some of our position on China. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary will, however, make a broader statement on the China audit immediately after this statement. I repeat again what I said in my opening remarks: our approach to China will be guided by protecting our security interests, which we will always do robustly, but also by promoting our economic interests; we do have an economic relationship with the second biggest economy in the world. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement, which is another firm example of this Government’s top priority of keeping residents safe. As the nature of warfare is changing, may I once again gently raise the importance of health security, and lobby for Harlow to be the new home of the UK Health Security Agency? \p Pat McFadden: I believe my hon. Friend is due happy birthday wishes, so let me take that opportunity, and thank him, too, for his tireless campaigning for locating the laboratories in Harlow. The facilities are an important capability for the United Kingdom. A decision has been awaited for some years; I am not ready to announce it today, but people will not have too long to wait before it is announced. \p Edward Morello: The national security strategy document outlines an expanded meaning of national security to include areas such as food security. If food security is national security—I certainly agree it is—we need to increase domestic production instead of cutting support for farmers and increasing our reliance on imports from the other side of the world. Will the Chancellor outline how the national security strategy will be used to change policy at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? \p Pat McFadden: The Government agree that food security is important. Our farmers, food producers and food retailers have been burdened with far too many increased costs and delays in recent years, but the recent sanitary and phytosanitary agreement we reached with the European Union will lift that burden. That will be good news for food producers in the UK, who will be able to grow and sell their magnificent produce with much greater ease than in recent years. \p Johanna Baxter: It is vital that the UK has robust defences against biological incidents, accidents and attacks. What steps are the Government taking to invest in our biosecurity, and how that will help to protect our country from the range of bio-threats that we face? \p Pat McFadden: There is a £1 billion investment in biosecurity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for DEFRA has been able to announce only today new investment in critical resources at Weybridge as part of that. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome today’s national security strategy, which bears a remarkable resemblance to every single one I have seen over the past 15 years. There have been only very slight adjustments over that period; I wonder whether there is any connection  between the authors, or whether it is just that the officials have not changed, so the politics has not changed. However, one thing that really has changed over that period is technology, and the document I have seen this morning has very little connection to the democratisation of technology that we have seen in Ukraine’s warfare in Russia or between Israel and Iran—or, indeed, in warfare we might see waged against us by the switching off of electronic items, including solar panels and cars by the Chinese state. \p Pat McFadden: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his question. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of technology, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. It is why we have put such stress on having an AI action plan to make this country as strong as possible in this field, and why we have made the investment in the supercomputer at Edinburgh and this time put the money behind it. Such technology is a critical part of our strength as a country and we have significant advantage and expertise in it. One aspect of the document is about ensuring that, where we have an advantage, we invest in it and we make sure that it deepens our capability in those crucial ways. \p Scott Arthur: I have Dreghorn and Redford barracks in my constituency, so I can only welcome the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war. However, many people will be concerned about the cost. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here: if our NATO allies are increasing spending along with us, is there an opportunity for our defence sector to benefit from that, generating jobs and helping to grow our economy? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right. Decisions to increase defence expenditure are not just about direct spending on the armed forces, but about the supply chain, industrial capability, defence suppliers and, critically, the skills to meet our defence needs. That is why the Prime Minister has referred to a defence dividend. This is not just security policy; it is industrial and skills policy, too. \p Robin Swann: Cyber-security is core and central to our security at home, but a significant weakness is the security of the cabling in the North Atlantic and along the west coast of Ireland. For too long, the Irish Government have freeloaded and taken for granted the United Kingdom providing defence and security. Have the Government approached the Irish Government to see whether they will pay or play their part? \p Pat McFadden: I recently had the privilege of visiting the cyber centre at Queen’s university in Belfast, which is doing fantastic research in this area. The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the importance of subsea cables. These carry critical data between us and overseas countries every day and it is certainly part of our strategy to do everything that we can to protect our subsea cable infrastructure. \p Jessica Toale: Unlike the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), I welcome the focus on science and technology in the  national security strategy. A new innovation quarter is being developed in Talbot village and the local council aspires to be an AI growth zone, so will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell me how this strategy will support growth and security in my constituency and across the south-west of England? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of technology. I said in my opening remarks that the investments that we made in the spending review, which did not fall from the sky but came about because of choices made by the Government, contribute to the strength and resilience of the country. That is why the strategy talks of three pillars—homeland security, alliances abroad and deepening our sovereign capabilities—and all three are important. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Given the scale of foreign-influence operations, particularly those of China, does the Minister accept that Britain’s societal resilience remains far too limited? Without clear Government messaging, how can institutions or the public properly play their role? Will the Minister commit to expanding the defending democracy taskforce to include public education, support for free media, and curbing People’s Liberation Army-linked speakers at taxpayer funded events? \p Pat McFadden: I would say that my faith in British society was strong. It is a strong society with deeply held democratic values. We never take that for granted, but it has been enduring and strong over the years. The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the importance of defending our democracy. We will always defend the right to have free elections and of our elected representatives to go about their business. We will also do our best to promote free speech and debate in our democratic process. \p Louise Jones: The Minister will know from my background that I will welcome the defence measures in the national security strategy, but I particularly wish to highlight the passages on energy security. We know that the impacts of the war in Ukraine, combined with our historical over-reliance on a single source of fuel—fossil fuels—meant that many people in my constituency and across the country faced crippling energy bills. Will the Minister outline how this security strategy will improve our energy security and make sure that we never face such a situation again? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the experience that we had several years ago—in the early stages of the Ukraine war—which showed the perils of over-reliance on overseas oil and gas. That is why investment in clean, home-grown energy is also an investment in our national security and why it contributes directly to the broader view of national security that is outlined in the strategy that we have published today. \p Christine Jardine: As the MP for Edinburgh West, I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to the defence industries in which so many of my constituents work in the city. As the Liberal Democrat Scotland spokesperson, however, I also welcome what the Minister himself describes as a “critical” investment  in the supercomputer at Edinburgh university. Will there be discussions with the Scottish Government to ensure that not just the national security implications but the educational and economic growth opportunities are achieved for the whole country, so that the whole country benefits? \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Lady said that she was speaking with two hats, and let me tell her that I know how that feels. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of dialogue with the Scottish Government. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee referred to the First Minister in her question. Yes, we do have a positive dialogue. Of course there are political differences, but the dialogue is probably in a better place than it has been for some time. As a former graduate of Edinburgh university, I very much welcome the investment in the supercomputer there. \p Gurinder Josan: I welcome this statement, particularly the attempt to renew and refresh our key alliances and develop new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. Clearly, the United States remains our most important defence and security ally, but we also have historic relationships with countries such as India, where we have recently agreed a very successful trade deal. In addition, the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike Group arrived in Singapore yesterday on a visit. In view of those relationships, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outline how the Government are strengthening our defence security relationships with key allies, such as India and Singapore, in the strategically important location of the Indo-Pacific? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right that the UK Carrier Strike Group is in Singapore and he is also right to draw attention to the very important India trade deal that was reached by the Government just a few weeks ago. In recent months, we have reached trade agreements with the US, with the European Union and with India. Many people thought that that could not be done over a course of years, but it was done over a course of weeks. Each one of those agreements will help to strengthen our economy and deepen our alliances with key allies. \p Nick Timothy: I note what the Minister said about social resilience. There is little point in strategising to defend our security and power in the world if we surrender our freedoms and culture without a whimper at home. Therefore, what will the Government do, for example, to stop the misuse of sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, not to mention the decisions of the likes of Bristol university and the Government with their proposed Islamophobia definition, to create a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Britain? \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Gentleman should have more faith in the depth and strength of British society. This is a society that has sustained robust debate over the years, and I think that it can do so in the future. It is a critical part of our national strength and a part of what makes this country great. I pay tribute to British society for being so strong and for allowing such robust debate. \p Connor Rand: Does the Minister agree that our energy security is fundamental to our national security, and, therefore, does he share my concerns that Conservative Members  now appear to disagree with the investment that we are making in energy security in this country? If they disagree with the investment that we are making in nuclear, small modular reactors and Great British Energy, they should stand up and say so. \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we make the decision to invest in new nuclear power, that is a contribution to our energy security. When we make the investment in other home-grown clean energy, that is a contribution to our national security. It is essential that, in this day and age, we have a broad view of national security, which understands our vulnerabilities and the importance of protecting ourselves against them. \p Joshua Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned new technology, such as AI and the expansion of our legal toolkit, but very little about the legal safeguards and domestic checks and balances that are needed. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure me about what checks and balances will be included to ensure that the civil liberties of UK citizens are protected at all costs? \p Pat McFadden: Of course we will protect civil liberties. There is a live debate about both security and opportunity in AI, and both are part of our strategy. Let me be clear that we are on the threshold of something that has enormous possibilities, and it is an area in which the UK has significant and deep strengths. The strategy we published today states that we should deepen our capabilities in these areas to grow our sovereign capabilities and that that, in turn, will make us stronger as a country. That is what we intend to do. \p Adam Thompson: Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby, just outside my constituency, is a major employer of my constituents. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that the Government remain committed to the nuclear triple lock and comment on how today’s announcement will support our nuclear manufacturing industry in the east midlands? \p Pat McFadden: I pay tribute to the work of Rolls-Royce and the contribution it makes to our national security. I assure my hon. Friend that our commitment to the nuclear deterrent as a cornerstone of our national security is right there as part of our national security strategy. \p David Reed: Labour has repeatedly stated that food security is national security—a point with which I and many of my constituents wholeheartedly agree—yet there remains a clear disconnect between that rhetoric and the substance of current policy. Beyond the announced biosecurity measures, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster genuinely believe that the national security strategy goes far enough to address the resilience of domestic food supply chains, the risk posed by climate change to agriculture, and systemic vulnerabilities in our food system? \p Pat McFadden: As I said a few moments ago, this Government have lifted the cost, delay and bureaucracy burdens on our food producers by reaching an SPS veterinary agreement with the European Union that the Conservatives would never have reached because of  their ideological objection to doing so. The agreement is good for our farmers and food producers, and it is something that this Government have done. \p Jim Allister: In this strategy, I read a number of encouraging promises. I quote two of them: “controlling our borders” and “controls on immigration”. How will applying those two promises work out at the open border with the Republic of Ireland, which allows unfettered immigrant passage into the United Kingdom? If we are going to control our borders and control immigration, when are we going to start controlling that border? \p Pat McFadden: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there has been a common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom for many years, which the previous Government and this Government were determined to keep. That is why there is an open border between the two countries, as he says. I refer him to the immigration White Paper published just a few weeks ago, which set out reforms to the legal immigration system. Immigration makes an immense contribution to UK society, but we know that people want a proper set of rules around it, and that is what the immigration White Paper provides. \p Cameron Thomas: I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about the Chinese Communist party. The national security  strategy recognises that UK security is tied to that of our allies. Do the Government acknowledge that lasting peace in Europe means terminating Putin’s European ambitions in Ukraine, and if so, how will the Government get that through to the US Administration? \p Pat McFadden: Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, we have stood by Ukraine. The strategy sets out the degree of support that this country has given Ukraine over the past four years. We continue to stand by Ukraine, and we continue to support its right to decide its own future. That will remain a core part of our strategy. With regard to China, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly setting out the China audit in greater detail. \p Jim Shannon: The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked the question I had hoped to ask, and the Minister sort of answered it, so I will ask a quite separate question. If the ambition is to reach spending at 5% of GDP on defence and broader security by 2035, what is the true current figure? We know the figure for defence but not for wider security; will it include MI5, MI6, GCHQ, counter-terrorism or, indeed, all of the police forces across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Member asks what the is situation now. As the statement released overnight stated, under the current definitions of what we spend on core defence expenditure and broader security expenditure, the figure would be 4.1% by 2027, and we hope to grow from there. \p David Lammy: With permission, I will make a statement on the China audit.

China’s rise has shaped the geopolitical landscape. Over the past decade, its military expenditure doubled. Its armed forces became the world’s largest. It established dominance over critical mineral supply chains. It pursued relentless innovation in electric vehicles, artificial intelligence and even space travel. Over the same period, China has delivered a third of global economic growth, becoming the world’s second largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, the UK’s third largest trading partner.

Not engaging with China is therefore no choice at all. China’s power is an inescapable fact. After what the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 described as a “completely inadequate” approach over the past decade to deal with China’s “size, ambition and capability”, we must now look at the facts. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton attempted a golden era. Boris Johnson let Huawei into our critical national infrastructure before U-turning. Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak decided that China was a threat but failed to devise any policy response, instead burying their heads in the sand.

This Government conducted an audit of our most complex bilateral relationship to deliver a long-term strategy, moving beyond cheap rhetoric to a data-driven, cross-Government approach. I would like to thank the hundreds who contributed to it, including hon. Members, of course, and experts, businesses, diaspora communities, devolved Governments and close allies. The audit is less a single act than an ongoing exercise that will continue to guide the UK’s approach to China. It informed the Government’s strategic defence review, which assessed that China was a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. It informed the national security strategy, published today, which sets out China’s impacts on each strategic pillar of UK national security. It has steered our trade and industrial strategies, which analysed where greater engagement is possible, given the important role China can play in delivering UK growth.

Hon. Members will understand that much of the audit was conducted at a high classification and that most of the detail is not disclosable without damaging our national interests. I am therefore providing a broad summary of its recommendations today in a manner consistent with that of our Five Eyes partners. On security, the audit described a full spectrum of threats, from espionage and cyber-attacks to the repression of Hongkongers and attacks on the rules-based order. It made clear that our protections must extend more widely than they currently do—from the security of this House to our critical national infrastructure.

Hon. Members will again recognise that disclosing the detail of the responses to those threats would undermine their effectiveness. However, I can confirm that following the audit we are investing £600 million in our intelligence services; updating our state threats legislation following Jonathan Hall’s review; strengthening our response to transnational repression; introducing training for police and launching more online guidance to support victims; launching, as announced in the industrial strategy, a 12-week consultation on updating the definitions covering the 17 sensitive areas under the National Security and  Investment Act 2021; and working bilaterally with China to enhance intelligence flows related to illicit finance specifically, organised immigration crime and scam centres, using new National Crime Agency capabilities.

On global security, the audit underlined the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin. The Government have already tripled the number of Chinese entities sanctioned for equipping Russia’s illegal war, and we will continue to confront that.

The audit reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted in both international law and deterrence. We will continue to confront China’s dangerous and destabilising activity in the South China sea, which I saw for myself when I visited the Philippines. We will continue to work with our regional partners to support freedom of navigation and call out China’s abuses. We will double down on AUKUS. We will not change our long-standing position on Taiwan, while sustaining unofficial but vibrant ties with Taiwan on trade, education and innovation. We will also never shy away from shining a spotlight on human rights—notably the situations in Xinjiang and Tibet—while on Hong Kong we will insist that China honours its commitments under the Sino-British joint declaration, including by repealing the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.

The audit made it clear that our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities. It provided ample evidence of the extent to which our economies are intertwined. China is our third biggest trading partner and our universities’ second largest source of international students. China will continue to play a vital role in supporting the UK’s secure growth, but over the past decade we have not had the structures either to take the opportunities or to protect us from the risks that those deep links demand. Businesses have told us time and again that they have lacked senior political engagement and adequate Government guidance.

We have already begun to develop new structures, including regular economic and financial dialogues with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, setting us on course to unlock £1 billion of economic value for the UK economy and positioning the UK’s world-leading financial sector to reflect China’s importance to the global economy; joint economic and trade commissions; and joint commission meetings on science. We will also launch a new online hub, bringing together detailed and specific business advice. The forthcoming trade strategy will set out how we will support British firms to enhance links with China’s vast and growing consumer market as well as assess new tools to keep goods made by forced labour anywhere in the world off Britain’s high streets.

The audit recognised that China’s global role does not fit into simple stereotypes. China is the world’s biggest emitter but also the biggest producer of renewables. It offers $80 billion towards development annually. It is also the UK’s second largest research collaborator: 11% of British research output included Chinese authors.

So the audit was clear: the UK must develop new dialogues with China on issues such as climate, development, global health and science, as well as on trade. In doing so, we are driving our long-term interests and creating secure opportunities for UK plc.

We cannot deal with China’s complexity unless we improve our capability to understand it, for our national security and for secure trade and growth. The audit  showed that under the last Government there was a profound lack of confidence in how to deal with China and a profound lack of knowledge regarding China’s culture, history and—most importantly—language. Over the past year, I have found that far too few mandarins speak Mandarin. We are already taking action to address that by introducing a new China fast stream in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, creating an FCDO global China network and training over 1,000 civil servants on China policy in the past year. Enhancing those capabilities still further will be a core focus for the £290 million FCDO transformation fund announced in the national security strategy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a short time ago. The new strategy, which proceeds from the audit, will ensure that the Government examine the full spectrum of interests in their decision-making processes and deliver the consistent approach that was so sorely lacking.

Anyone expecting a simple prescription on China is not living in the real world. The audit has painted a complex picture, but it has provided us with a clear way forward. The UK’s approach to China will be founded on progressive realism, taking the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Like our closest allies, we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. Never compromising on our national security, recognising the complexity of the world as it is, engaging confidently, carefully and pragmatically, and delivering secure growth—those are the hallmarks of grown-up government, acting in the long-term national interest. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I look forward to reading the audit and receiving the detailed briefings that clearly cannot be put in the public domain.

Let us be clear: China thinks that its way is the best and only way, and its leaders are on an international quest for global governance and for its frightening authoritarian model to supersede ours. Ours is one of democracy, openness and standing up for freedom and values.

China has been ramping up its military with alarming conviction, including conventional nuclear and space capabilities, and it is a critical enabler of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—we saw President Xi standing side by side with Putin in Moscow just weeks ago—so be in no doubt that China and Russia are collaborating across all domains to undermine our very democratic freedoms and the west. Beijing tramples on the Sino-British declaration in Hong Kong, threatens British national overseas passport holders on British soil and has imprisoned Jimmy Lai—a British national—through an awful, politically motivated trial.

Beijing’s unjustified aggression in the South China sea is dangerous, and it unacceptably intimidates and challenges the sovereignty of its neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. It is consistently and constantly threatening the peace-seeking democracy of Taiwan while committing  the most appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang. It also applies hybrid and grey-zone techniques against Britain, including malign cyber-activity directed at our democratic institutions and sanctioning our very own Members of Parliament, all the while exploiting vulnerable countries through its belt and road initiative. China also flagrantly brushes aside economic rules and steals intellectual property. It has developed sophisticated models to acquire strategic assets around the world.

Despite all of that, it has taken the Government a year to produce this audit, which seemingly fails to set out any kind of serious strategic framework. I think it is fair to say that we know why: it is because the Government—in fact, the Foreign Secretary touched on this—have gone cap in hand to China to bail out their terrible handling of the British economy. They are setting up closer economic ties with China while knowing very well that British businesses are struggling not just in competing against China, but to absorb the weight of Labour’s own regulatory costs.

We have not heard it in the statement, but can the Foreign Secretary name a single area where measurable, tangible progress has been made in advancing critical British interests with China, whether on national security, economic practices, climate or human rights? He failed to mention that Members of this House have been sanctioned by China.

We have seen signs of naivety from the Government—consistently, if I may say so. [Interruption.] Within one day of the Prime Minister meeting President Xi, he effectively held that as an opportunity to bring about a strong and consistent relationship in which surprises would be avoided. Within the following few days, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were jailed in Hong Kong, following a very harsh application of the draconian national security law. That is completely unacceptable.

What is the Foreign Secretary’s actual strategy to deter China from systematically extinguishing freedoms in Hong Kong? Will he commit to using the full weight of the Government machine to do more to protect BNOs and Hongkongers who suffer outrageous transnational repression in the UK, rather than just issuing guidance and training?

The Government have constantly and suspiciously backed the application for China’s new super-embassy in London. Why are the Foreign Secretary and the Government not showing the same backbone that their Irish and Australian counterparts showed when they saw fit to block embassy planning applications from Russia, which they deemed too risky for national security?

Do the Government have a practical strategy to deter Chinese efforts to capture Taiwan by military means or by stealth, or to oppose the human rights abuses in Xinjiang? What is the Foreign Secretary’s end goal and what are the means of getting there? What will he do to find new critical minerals supply chains in order to reduce reliance on Chinese trade? With that, what will the Government do now to move Jimmy Lai’s case on to an urgent footing, away from the complex consular case handling that it seems to have in the Foreign Office?

The Government need to urgently sort out some of the grave contradictions mentioned in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I will highlight a few. We heard him speak about the China audit underlining

“the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin.”

We do not question or doubt that, but some action is needed. The statement also says that the audit

“reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted both in international law and deterrence.”

How does that help Jimmy Lai at this particular moment?

We will always support the security and the defence of our country, so the Government must do much more when it comes to keeping Britain safe from China. \p David Lammy: I know that the right hon. Lady can be pretty brazen, but a lecture from her about China policy should make even her blush. The Conservative party oversaw more than a decade of division, inconsistency and complacency towards China. There was no strategy, there was no plan and there was no sense of a national interest. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which was chaired by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), from her party, said that the actions on China had left Britain “severely handicapped” in managing our future security. The truth is that the right hon. Lady was at the centre of it.

Where was she during the ill-judged Cameron-Osborne golden age? She was the Minister for the Treasury. Where was she during the humiliating Huawei U-turn? She was Home Secretary. The Tories had their heads in the sand. Under them, Britain’s defences were weakened and our armed services hollowed out. It is a Labour Government who are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to deal with those threats; it is a Labour Government who are investing £290 million extra a year in our diplomatic capabilities in this area; it is a Labour Government who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war; and it is a Labour Government who are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

I refer the right hon. Lady to page 28 of the strategic defence review—she clearly has not bothered to read it—which makes it clear that we of course understand that China is a “sophisticated and persistent” threat. She talks about the embassy, but she should know, as a former Home Secretary, that it is a quasi-judicial decision that has been properly made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The right hon. Lady talks about Jimmy Lai. I met Sebastien Lai last week, and we have been raising the issue on every single occasion. A trial is ongoing, so let us see how it will complete. She raises transnational aggression. We are the ones updating our state threats legislation because the Conservatives left the gaps and did nothing when in power. She raises the situation in Russia and the Chinese supplying Russia with dual-use goods. Who has done the sanctions? There have been five rounds of sanctions under me as Foreign Secretary. What did the Conservatives do? I will take no lectures on this subject from them, who know that, as a Government, they were found wanting on the question of threats from the Chinese. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: Our relationship with China is most definitely a difficult one. On the one hand, it is our third biggest trading partner, but on the other hand, the national security strategy, on page 35, says that there is an  increase in espionage, China is undermining our economic security and interfering in our democracy, and that has increased over recent years. The Foreign Office needs to hold the ring.

The China audit needs to be wide-ranging. It is an important piece of work. We were looking forward to seeing it published and to the Foreign Secretary coming to talk to us—he said that he would—but instead we are looking through a glass darkly, we do not know and we will not be able to see it. We want to be able to do our job properly and scrutinise this important piece of work. May I therefore suggest that the Foreign Secretary makes available a reading room at the FCDO for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff before his appearance on 8 July so that we can study the audit properly and hold him to account? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the interest that she has taken with the China audit. I did say that I would update the Committee, and I look forward to appearing before it and taking questions on this subject.

In completing the audit, it has been important to remain consistent with our Five Eyes partners. She will recognise why much of the audit has led to a high level of classification. She will note, when she looks across the G7 and other Five Eyes partners, that many of them have handled their approach to China in the way that I have set out. I refer her to the strategic defence review and its contents on China. I refer her to the national security strategy, which has just been published, and its references to China. I also refer her to the UK’s industrial strategy and its references to China, alongside the statement that I have just made. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. For years, UK Governments have failed to take seriously the challenge posed by China. The Conservatives failed to deliver even the semblance of a coherent approach to dealing with Beijing. Today, after months of waiting for this audit, the Government’s failure to publish a stand-alone document is immensely disappointing. Will the Foreign Secretary set out how Members of this House, including those on the Intelligence and Security Committee and those on the Front Benches with responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and security, can be briefed on the more sensitive elements of the audit?

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise China for what it is: a threat to our values and interests. The Foreign Secretary is right that our approach must confront the facts as they are. They include China’s hostility to the UK’s allies and support for our adversaries, its abuse of human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, the theft of intellectual property and its efforts at transnational repression. Instead of trying to establish warm relations with President Xi, the Government should commit to clear red lines on what they will not accept. For example, we have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for why my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was denied entry to Hong Kong when on a private visit to see her family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what steps he will take if Beijing refuses to give an assurance that MPs will not be blocked from visiting Hong Kong or China?

We now hear reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is preparing to wave through Beijing’s application for a proposed mega-embassy in the heart of London. That is not a technical planning matter to be cloaked in the veil of quasi-judicial powers; it is a matter of national security. Opposition has been expressed by the United States and by pro-democracy Chinese and Hong Kong activists living in the UK, who already face Chinese Communist party-sponsored bounties. Has the Foreign Secretary met those activists, and will he formally request that the mega-embassy application be blocked? \p David Lammy: As I have said, this was a comprehensive audit of our relations with China, and for reasons that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised consistently, there are important sections of that audit that must remain classified. He mentioned the Intelligence and Security Committee; as he would expect, mechanisms are in place to allow that Committee to understand some of the details, and to scrutinise them in the usual way. He mentioned the experience of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I want to make it clear that when I recently met the Chinese International Minister and member of the Communist party, Mr Liu Jianchao, I raised that case, and our huge concerns about its implications for the free travel of British citizens and democratically elected Members of Parliament, not just in this country but across the world.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the embassy and had questions about security. Those issues are precisely why the Home Secretary and I, advised by our security agencies, wrote a letter on the issue of the embassy, raising the concerns that would need to be addressed if the proposal was to move forward. And yes, of course I have met activists who are campaigning, particularly on the issue of transnational repression, and so has the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who deals with this issue and the Indo-Pacific. \p Blair McDougall: As chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Uyghurs and on Hong Kong, I have lost count of the number of responses I have had from Ministers that have referred to today’s audit. I hope the Foreign Secretary will forgive me if I take today as the start of a conversation, rather than the last word on these matters. He has again used his three Cs mantra: competing and co-operating with China, and challenging it when needed. I wonder if he understands that many Hongkongers, Uyghurs and others who are fighting for freedom from or within the People’s Republic of China worry that the order of that is deliberate, and that the “challenging” part is a lower priority. What reassurance can he give to those groups that commercial interests will not trump the responsibility to protect freedoms and security, particularly of British Hongkongers? Can he confirm that the threats identified in the audit, and the national security challenge, will be fed into the decision making on whether to allow the embassy? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his championing on the APPGs, and for pressing these issues. I said in my statement that we will co-operate  where we can but challenge where we must. I have consistently raised the situation of the Uyghur Muslims in meetings with counterparts, and I have encouraged them to implement the recommendations on Xinjiang from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Genocide is a matter for the international courts, but it is something that I and our allies in the G7 take very seriously indeed, and we will press this issue with the Government of China on every single occasion. \p Iain Duncan Smith: First of all, before we go to the political knockabout, let me say that I have spoken critically on this issue no matter who was in government; let us settle that before we go on. I want to give the Foreign Secretary a quick audit of exactly what should have been said. China threatens Taiwan, has invaded the South China seas and is having massive disputes with the Philippines. There is genocide, slave labour, organ harvesting and transnational repression. There have been attacks on Hong Kong dissidents here, and Hong Kong dissidents are constantly under threat. There have been cyber-attacks on the UK. China supports Myanmar’s repressive military regime and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also supports North Korea and Iran. It has trashed the Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong, arrested Jemmy Lai and placed sanctions on UK MPs, and it thieves all the intellectual property from private companies. What a record! And what would we balance against that? Some potential trade?

This question has already been asked, in a way, but it is worth repeating. On the embassy decision, it was said clearly in the media that China would not apply again after the refusal from Tower Hamlets unless it received assurances from the UK Government. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me that China has not received any assurances? Or has it received private assurances from the Government that it will get what it wants, and will get this embassy? \p David Lammy: Let me express my respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise on the China threat. I acknowledge that he is subject to sanctions; I have consistently raised that point with China, noting that it recently lifted sanctions against Members of the European Parliament. I pressed it recently to do the same for Members here. Let me assure him that there are no grubby deals on any issues, and certainly not on the embassy; I reject any suggestion to the contrary. He describes the context on China. I refer him to page 28 of the strategic defence review, which summarises the challenge better than he did. It states that China is

“a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order.”

We agree. \p Matt Western: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am the first to recognise, along with him, the need for pragmatism on this issue. He speaks of our closest allies. In Washington a couple of weeks ago, I heard about the Americans’ real concerns about the super-embassy in London. They are banning Chinese electric vehicles because of their autonomous and connected nature, which is an extraordinary move to consider making. I recognise that there is an economic need, but there is obviously political pressure as well. Can members of the Joint  Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, have access to the confidential documents, so that we can be clear-eyed about what we face? \p David Lammy: I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend does in this area, but I must maintain that there has not been that access under any Government, other than for those on the Intelligence and Security Committee, who have access to high-classification documents, and for Privy Counsellors, who have access to conversations with the Government and officials that they pledge to keep secret. The Government cannot abandon those principles, which have consistently served us well for many years under many Governments. \p Edward Morello: On page 39, the “National Security Strategy 2025” states:

“Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.”

Just three pages later, it talks about the importance of

“creating the basis for a reciprocal and balanced economic relationship”

with China. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the inherent conflict between this Government’s desire for closer economic relations, and the Chinese Government’s desire to undermine our economy? \p David Lammy: The paradox is important, but let me be clear that £600 million-worth of new investment in our intelligence services is an important development. Investment in our capabilities, including new powers and capabilities for the National Cyber Security Centre, is an important development, but being able to unlock £1 billion-worth of trade with our third biggest trading partner must also be central to our undertaking at this time. \p Gurinder Josan: I welcome this statement, particularly as it has become clearer that the Conservatives badly mismanaged not just their policies towards China but our relationship with it over successive years. China offers economic opportunities, but also poses threats, as we have been hearing. We also heard earlier in the statement on the national security strategy about the importance of partnership and alliances, including with key allies in the Indo-Pacific. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Boris Johnson’s 2019 embracing of China’s belt and road initiative was a serious diversion from the position of many of our democratic allies, many of whom saw the belt and road initiative as a threat? \p David Lammy: Prime Minister Johnson’s record on China is shocking. It led to the grave embarrassment of having to do a U-turn on Huawei, which would have been able to get into the most delicate of our telecommunications infrastructure. It is because of that that we undertook, while in opposition, to do a full audit. That audit is constantly ongoing, but I hope that my hon. Friend will see its results reflected in the industrial strategy, the national security strategy and, of course, the SDR, which was published recently. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I enjoyed playing buzzword bingo when the right hon. Member presented his statement. I remind him that the rebellion on Huawei was actually led by Conservative Members, not Labour.

May I question the right hon. Gentleman about a meeting, which he referred to with a little more pride than I would have done? It was the meeting with Liu Jianchao, who is personally responsible for Operations Fox Hunt and Sky Net, which, of course, concern transnational repression, the kidnapping of Chinese citizens and their repatriation by force to mainland China. He did not seem quite as ashamed of that as I would have been. Why has he still not made it clear that the first scheme, which the Conservatives left intact and ready to go, will not yet be introduced for the whole of the Chinese state, as it should be? That is what it was designed for. For all the words that we have heard, there is not a single practical outcome. It is all still waffle. \p David Lammy: I recognise, and it is right to put on the record, that Conservative Members, the right hon. Gentleman among them, have raised significant issues over the past decade or so about the approach to China. That is why, in opposition, we said that we would do a full audit. He will recognise and welcome, I suspect, the extra investment in the intelligence services, and particularly in our national cyber capability. I see him nodding. Those are tangible outcomes. That cannot, on any analysis, be described as waffle. \p Rosie Wrighting: Before coming to Parliament, I worked in a buying department for a large international retailer. In my career, I saw a move to sourcing from China, and a rise in the popularity of retailers based in China. How will the audit work with the Department for Business and Trade to level the playing field for UK manufacturers, given the imports from China, particularly in the light of unfair trading practices, to protect our economic security and UK supply chains? \p David Lammy: It is a good question, and I refer my hon. Friend to the industrial strategy and the further work that we have to do on supply chains. From day one, this Government have taken a big interest in global supply chains in critical minerals. Together with many partners across the world, we are working with the Global Clean Power Alliance to create new supply chains, in order to deal with the issues that she has raised. \p Wera Hobhouse: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his efforts in raising the issue of my being refused entry to Hong Kong. I look forward to reassurances that no UK MP will be refused entry to any Chinese territories.

The Foreign Secretary’s statement mentioned that China is our universities’ second largest source of international students, and that includes my university, the University of Bath. Global academic exchange and the free flow of ideas is at the heart of our liberal values and should be welcomed, but should the Government not be aware of the fine balance that must be kept? We should not allow young researchers and students access to certain knowledge that could ultimately be used against the UK. \p David Lammy: The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a fine balance. We need to invest more in our police capability, and that is an outcome of this audit. We need to continue to work with our universities, so that they understand the threats in this area, as well as the opportunities. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Members will be aware that we have three debates this afternoon, so I aim to finish this statement by 2.35 pm. \p Louise Jones: May I say to the Foreign Secretary how much I welcome this China audit? I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. As someone who studied Chinese at university and lived there for a year, I know how complex and different China can be, and the many misconceptions and ignorance around China have been a source of frustration for me. Whatever anybody thinks of our relationship with China, it is absolutely vital that we have clear communication and that we deal with China from a position of knowledge. Does the Foreign Secretary agree how important it is that the FCDO is upskilled to ensure that we have that knowledge of Chinese culture and language skills, so we are fully prepared for the years ahead? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of capabilities. We must have more diplomats with a fine understanding of China and more Mandarin speakers, and we are doing that. Sadly, the last Government cut the number of diplomats with that capability and understanding. We need to invest in the Great Britain-China Centre so that understanding of the culture is across our country, and she is absolutely right on that point. \p Judith Cummins: Order. I also remind Members that it would be helpful to have short questions and answers. \p David Reed: On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China? \p David Lammy: What I see is naivety on the behalf of the hon. Gentleman. First, to be clear, the Deputy Prime Minister has not made her quasi-judicial decision. It is wrong, and he should correct the record of the House because the decision has not been made. Secondly, why would we want a situation in which the United States, under both Governments, can take the hardest approach on China, but trade is up, and in which our G7 partners understand the risks and threats of China, but all their trade is up, when under the last Government, we were in a situation where trade was down only for the UK? That cannot be right. \p Scott Arthur: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Secretary of State for his pragmatic approach. Opposition is easy, but Opposition Members know that if they were in his shoes, they would be doing exactly the same thing. Huawei has been mentioned a couple of times in passing. The reality is the guddle over it delayed the roll-out of 5G by three years and cost the economy £7 billion, which is just incredible and shameful, actually. I welcome the  emphasis placed on improving cultural links between the UK and China and, of course, our universities are a key part of that. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that our universities have a say in how we establish better relationships between China and the UK? \p David Lammy: I reassure my hon. Friend that our universities were able to contribute to our China audit. \p Chris Law: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to human rights situations in Xinjiang and Tibet. I would like to have seen more about religious freedoms, which includes next week’s birthday of the Dalai Lama—probably the most well-known Tibetan in the world. His future reincarnation should be for the people of Tibet, both inside and the diaspora. Given the Tibetan diaspora, the Uyghur diaspora and Hong Kong nationals are under constant surveillance here by the Chinese Communist party, how do the Government plan to take the recently agreed G7 definition of transnational repression and translate it into domestic law? \p David Lammy: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in December, we appointed my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) as the special envoy for freedom of religion and belief. He is right to raise the issues that we are aware of in Tibet. On transnational repression, we have a broad range of powers to counter foreign interference and transnational repression, particularly under the National Security Act 2023, which we will update. \p Peter Swallow: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and that answer. He will know that in Bracknell and the wider Berkshire area we have a large Hong Kong community, who have been terrified at the threat of national repression from the Hong Kong Government. What message can he share with my constituents about the protections available for them to enjoy the democracy and freedom of speech that we so value here in the UK? \p David Lammy: The Minister for the Indo-Pacific has met some of my hon. Friend’s constituents on this issue. Because of the concerns he rightly raises, I hope he will welcome the training for our police right across the nation on these issues. \p Gregory Stafford: Will the Government publish a list of sectors considered overly dependent on Chinese input, starting with critical minerals and clean energy components, to promote transparency? Will the Foreign Secretary outline any clear Government targets for reducing those dependencies? \p David Lammy: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the powers to counter foreign interference and transnational repression under the National Security Act. \p Tom Gordon: The Foreign Secretary mentioned Hong Kong in his statement. Would he consider speaking to colleagues in the Home Office about rethinking the changes to indefinite leave to remain, to ensure BNO passport holders do not end up facing questions about their status? \p David Lammy: That issue is still subject to consultation and will be announced by the Home Secretary in the usual way. \p Harriet Cross: The UK Government are still considering Mingyang as a credible supplier for turbines for the Green Volt offshore wind project, and the SNP Scottish Government have given Mingyang priority status for a factory to build turbines based in Scotland under their strategic investment plan. Both say to me that neither Government are taking seriously the threat that China poses to our energy supplies. China is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile and should be nowhere near our critical national infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State finally rule out Mingyang being a permitted supplier for energy infrastructure in the future or at least give us a date for when we will hear a decision? \p David Lammy: Through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, we have a robust framework to make individual decisions such as the one on Mingyang. As the hon. Lady knows, energy is one of 17 priority sectors under the NSIA in which Government can block any potential acquisitions on security grounds, and that remains under consideration. \p Luke Taylor: It is four years today since the Apple Daily ceased publication, and Jimmy Lai still languishes in Hong Kong’s Stanley Prison. It is worth noting his name and encouraging the Foreign Secretary to raise his case as often as he can. It is welcome to see in the statement that we are

“strengthening our response to transnational repression”.

Can the Minister confirm that that includes restoring access to the Mandatory Provident Fund, which is another way the Hong Kong Government are spreading their chilling impacts on BNO visa holders here in the UK? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. May I also name-check the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on this issue? The issue is under consideration, and we have been discussing with communities these very important pension issues. \p Julian Lewis: In his statement, the Foreign Secretary says that

“our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities”.

As an example of that, he refers to our universities’ second largest source of international students being China, yet the Intelligence and Security Committee stated in the press notice for its report on China, of which he approves:

“China is similarly aggressive in its interference activities… China oversteps the boundary. It has been particularly effective at using its money and influence to penetrate or buy Academia in order to ensure its international narrative is advanced and criticism suppressed.”

In answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), he said that we look to the universities to take precautions. Given the financial incentive to universities, I would rather look to someone else to take the precautions. \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman is right: we do have to be vigilant. As I said, sitting behind this audit is a lot of work at high classification. He will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee understands the nature of that work, particularly the work that sits behind the strategic defence review and the national security strategy. That is ongoing, and I am happy to ensure that he is aware of the work we are doing with universities. \p Christine Jardine: The Foreign Secretary has referred to protections in terms of energy companies, but when it comes to Mingyang and Orient Cable in the highlands and the North sea, the concern is not their ability to produce but their ability to switch off and on the network and our energy security and, as a result, national security. Can he tell us what mitigating measures will be put in place if those contracts are won? \p David Lammy: I recognise the sensitivity and the import of what the hon. Lady says. That is central to the considerations and discussions that are under way within Government as we look at these issues and balance them against our national security. \p Jim Allister: For weeks, some questions on China have been deflected on the basis that we should wait for the audit, so it is rather disappointing that the insight we get today is very opaque. In the Foreign Secretary’s statement, he reveals that China is the UK’s second largest research collaborator. Has he done an audit of the nature of that research? Are there economic and intelligence risks from that research, and are the Government minded to take any steps either to monitor or to control the extent of that research? \p David Lammy: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he would have liked to hear more and the statement was opaque, but the other side of that coin is that it might be reassuring that the Government are not making all of our intelligence capability and understanding available to China and the outside world. He will recognise that the biggest academic partner in that research is the United States, and given the way the economy of China has grown, certainly over my two decades in Parliament, it is not surprising that it has emerged as our second largest. I want to reassure him that, of course, the agencies are able to offer full advice to universities and examine sensitivities, and we are very aware of the threats he has conveyed to the House. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: For an example of a quick question, I call Sir Desmond Swayne. \p Desmond Swayne: It was proper and lawful to send HMS Spey through the Taiwan strait in pursuit of vital international freedom of navigation in the South China sea, was it not, and can we see more like it? \p David Lammy: Yes, and yes. \p Nick Timothy: I want to remind the Foreign Secretary that the Government that invited Huawei into our telecommunications network was actually the last Labour Government between 2003 and 2006. [Interruption.] Well, he has tried to be partisan about  it. The ebb and flow of these issues and the mistakes go back quite a long time, and he should acknowledge that.

What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of China’s dominance of the world market for cellular internet modules, which are subsidised and sold internationally below the cost of manufacture? What assessment in particular has he made of the insertion of kill switches in Chinese-made wind turbines and PV cells, and will he rule out any Chinese involvement in our energy infrastructure? \p David Lammy: I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, whose advice to former Prime Minister May led to the possibility of nuclear information being revealed. He should be embarrassed, and I am surprised he came to this statement this afternoon. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Given that China represents one of the defining geopolitical challenges of our age, I am somewhat sceptical about reports this morning that this much-touted, long-awaited year-long audit has significantly downgraded that challenge. Under this Government, there has been a significant increase in ministerial engagement and visits with China, a policy that is at best incoherent and at worst incompetent. Given that actions speak louder than words, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will no longer be making his proposed trip to China? \p David Lammy: The audit is a lot of work, and we have not even been in government for a year. We pledged to undertake an audit, we have undertaken that audit and what I have set out is comprehensive. There can be no no-go areas for the UK Prime Minister. \p Robin Swann: The audit received responses from the devolved Governments. Last month, the Northern Ireland Finance Minister met the Chinese consul general in Belfast. The meeting was described as a formal diplomatic engagement with views exchanged on deepening co-operation. Significantly, there were no press interviews, publicly released minutes or full attendee list; no specific sectors or agreements were referenced. Northern Ireland’s foreign policy is not devolved, so does the Foreign Secretary know what was discussed or agreed? Does he think he should know and will he ask? As a response to the audit, did the Northern Ireland Executive include what was discussed in that meeting or previous meetings between the Chinese Government and the First and Deputy First Ministers? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, and I will consult my officials about what he has revealed. \p Judith Cummins: I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is essential that we have a fuller understanding of the reach of China, as well as of our goals. British citizens have contacted me about the human rights violations, not only against those in China but those who live on our shores. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that China understands that its reach stops before our shores, and that our people are entitled to think and have freedom of speech whenever they desire, without any fear of reprisal? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right. We will always fight and press for our democratic norms. We cannot accept repression, oppression and criminal acts committed in our own country. We will stand up to them, and I have made representations to my Chinese interlocutors to make that completely clear. \p Nick Timothy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice about the exchange that I have just had with the Foreign Secretary. After he had been incredibly partisan about the history of Huawei’s involvement in our telecommunications infrastructure, I pointed out that that involvement began under the previous Labour Government when he was a Minister, but he tried to accuse Members on the Conservative Front Bench of something similar. I asked a serious question about the Chinese dominance of the world market for cellular internet modules, which is a very serious issue. We have all grown used to the fact that we do not get answers in this House, so perhaps you will advise us, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether Ministers will do so. The Foreign Secretary then decided to abuse and insult me personally about advice that he claims that I gave, in a previous role, to a former Prime Minister. He has no idea what advice I gave in that job. If he cares so much about my personal history, he will read all the things I have ever written about the role of Chinese companies in our energy infrastructure. I would like him to take the opportunity to withdraw the accusation. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he refers to was a matter of debate and nothing disorderly occurred. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I would urge that good temper and moderation be followed at all times in this Chamber. \p David Lammy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of record that former Prime Minister May was considering matters that pertain to our nuclear capability. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was an adviser at that stage, and she had to withdraw her recommendations on the China General Nuclear Power Group. That is a matter of record, and anyone in this Chamber can google it. \p Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While the Foreign Secretary is sitting here, I thought it relevant to record that we have just heard that the American Government have put in a second disapproval, for security reasons, to the granting of a Chinese embassy in the proposed location. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but as he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has put his comment on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Blake Stephenson: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the consideration of flooding risk in the planning process; to make internal drainage boards statutory consultees for certain planning decisions; and for connected purposes.

During this Parliament, we have heard a lot about the problems in the planning system. In particular, the Government have spoken about the blockers—those who, for reasons that the Government seem not to understand, oppose developments they see as bad for their communities. This Bill intends to go some way to fix the Government’s problem. In reality, the reason that many people in our communities become blockers is that they have no faith that the planning system will deliver houses that make their lives better. They are hard-working people, but rather than listen to their concerns, the Government have sought to bash them at every turn.

One of the biggest problems in the planning system is the total failure of many local authorities—as a councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to properly understand and consider flood risk in new developments. Policy that the Government think ought to be sufficient to prevent development on floodplains in all but exceptional circumstances, for example, is being circumvented by developers. Due to lack of suitable expertise in planning, we see such developments often going ahead without suitable drainage infrastructure to protect our communities from flooding.

What does this all mean? It means that many communities in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country who have done the right thing, and taken the houses that the Government want them to take, now find themselves with a higher flood risk, while developers have got away high and dry with their profits. When they stand ankle-deep in water in their once dry living rooms and desperately attempt to stop the next bad development making their situation worse, the Prime Minister calls them blockers. We are letting them down.

This is not a hypothetical situation—it is happening in our communities in Mid Bedfordshire right now. Take the village of Maulden, historically developed as a linear settlement running along the greensand ridge, where developers saw an opportunity to develop up the slope of the ridge. That upslope development has caused a huge increase in flooding in Maulden, to the point that homes that have stood for centuries with minimal flooding have now been reclassified by the Environment Agency as being within flood plain.

Are the developers stopping there? Of course not. Another 40 hectares of land has been put forward for development around Maulden as part of the call for sites for the next central Bedfordshire local plan. Who gains from planning like this? It certainly is not the hard-working people who already live in Maulden, who saved up to buy the house that they had been dreaming about and wish to be able to peacefully enjoy it, without having to worry about getting sandbags out every time grey clouds form overhead. It is not the people who  worked hard to get their new-build home in Maulden, only to discover the planning system let them down and allowed developers to get away without building the right protections for their homes from flooding. It is not the Government, who are left puzzled as to why all these people are opposing their plans to build thousands more homes in our communities. The only people who gain are the big box developers who have thrown up the houses with minimal restrictions and mitigations, and taken their profits whilst our communities pay the price. Maulden is just one example, but there are many places in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country where our planning system has failed the people who need it most—the people we serve.

That is what this Bill will try to fix, starting by ensuring that where we have an internal drainage board—experts on flooding and flood management—we take advantage of their expertise and make them a statutory consultee on development that is likely to have an impact on flood risk in the broad area they cover. Many internal drainage boards are already contributing to that work by making representations on planning applications, but putting them on a statutory footing would ensure that their advice is given the consideration it deserves and would cost us nothing.

This Bill will make a simple amendment to schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to insert internal drainage boards as a statutory consultee in the planning system. It will also ensure that we take the politics out of protecting people from flooding by ensuring that the Secretary of State may remove internal drainage boards as a statutory consultee only if they replace them with an alternative body, which should provide advice on flooding risk.

The Environment Agency already acts as a statutory consultee on planning matters that impact on flood plains, but it lacks the resources to effectively and  efficiently identify flooding risk more broadly. That is why internal drainage boards, where they exist, should be brought into the planning process to complement its role and ensure that proper consideration is being given to the flooding implications of developments for current and future residents.

This Bill will also ensure that planning authorities give appropriate weight to flood risk in the planning system and prevent developers avoiding their obligations to build liveable homes rather than just their own profits. It will introduce a simple presumption against development where the lead local flood authority, the Environment Agency and/or the internal drainage board, considers that the development would increase flood risk for existing properties when taking into account sustainable drainage infrastructure and flood mitigation measures.

The Bill would require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance, prepared by a panel of experts, for planning authorities and lead local authorities on the minimum expected standards for drainage and maintenance in new developments. It would build on recent Government announcements on build-out rates and give planning authorities the ability to reject future planning applications from developers on the basis of past failures to deliver or maintain sustainable drainage infrastructure.

We must do better for the hard-working people in our communities who want to return from work to a warm, dry home. That is the least they deserve, and I present this Bill for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Blake Stephenson, David Simmonds, Nick Timothy, Mr Gagan Mohindra, Dr Ben Spencer, Sarah Bool, Alison Griffiths, Jack Rankin, Rebecca Paul, Lewis Cocking and Paul Holmes present the Bill.

Blake Stephenson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 270). \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant documents: Second Report of the Education Committee, Scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, HC 732, and the Government response, HC 925; Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 10 June, 13 May, 29 April, 11 March, 25 February and 28 January, on Solving the SEND Crisis, HC 492; Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 3 June, 23 April and 25 March, on Further Education and Skills, HC 666; Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 8 April, on Higher Education and Funding: Threat of Insolvency and International Students, HC 807; Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 18 March, 11 February, 21 January 2025 and 17 December 2024, on Children’s social care, HC 430; Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 15 January, on the Work of the Department for Education, HC 540; Written evidence to the Education Committee, on Solving the SEND Crisis, reported to the House on 17 June, 10 June, 3 June, 20 May, 13 May and 25 March, HC 492; Correspondence from the Education Committee to the Minister for School Standards, on Government Policy on SEND, reported to the House on 11 March 2025.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2026, for expenditure by the Department for Education:

(1) further resources, not exceeding £50,874,837,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 871 of Session 2024–25,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £17,317,202,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £66,974,384,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Catherine McKinnell.) \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Education Committee. \p Helen Hayes: I rise to address the House on the Department for Education’s main estimate for 2025-26. I thank the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate this afternoon; it is an important opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s spending plans, which must deliver for every child, young person and family. Education is the bedrock of opportunity, social mobility and economic growth.

The Government inherited a situation in which almost every aspect of the Department for Education’s areas of responsibility faced severe challenges, from the financial pressures on early years providers to the erosion of school budgets and teacher pay, the crisis in the special educational needs and disabilities system, underfunding of further education and skills and a total reset needed in children’s social care. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend is giving a really important speech on a subject that is very dear to my heart, as everyone in the House knows. Will she add to her list the huge issues that we inherited  with school buildings? As a former teacher—I have mentioned that a few times—I know that the learning environment is really important. We inherited a real issue with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, for example, but there have also been other issues, such as those faced by Sir Frederick Gibberd college in my constituency. \p Helen Hayes: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the state of the school estate.

The final area of challenge is that many universities face a risk of insolvency. At the heart of all the Department’s responsibilities are individual children and young people who need and are entitled to the best possible start in life, secure foundations, a great education and every opportunity to grow into active citizens with successful careers and a good quality of life. The challenges in our education and social care systems can be seen in the outcomes for children and young people, with rising numbers of children not meeting the early learning goals when they start school, growing disadvantage gaps at all stages of education, very poor outcomes for care-experienced young people, rising levels of school absence and far too many children with special educational needs and disabilities not receiving the support that they need to thrive in education.

I will speak to the estimates across five key spending areas—SEND, children’s social care, early years, skills, and higher education—drawing on the Education Committee’s ongoing inquiries to ensure that these funds meet the urgent needs of our communities. On special educational needs and disabilities, the main estimate reflects the Government’s recognition of the challenges, with an immediate increase in high needs revenue funding of more than £1 billion. Capital spending for high needs provision sees a 138% uplift, from £310 million to £740 million, to create new school places.

During the inquiry, my Committee has heard powerful testimony from families and educators about the crisis in the SEND system, with witnesses calling for significant and far-reaching reform to ensure that funds translate into effective delivery for children. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that rising SEND costs could absorb much of the mainstream school budget uplift, and that capital investment, while significant, may not meet growing demand. The forthcoming schools White Paper promised this autumn must set out bold reforms, with resources made available to ensure that they can be implemented successfully. Our inquiry report will set out recommendations to the Government for reform of the SEND system, and I hope that the Government will make time to take full account of our work. I urge the Minister to confirm a timescale for those reforms, informed by our Committee’s evidence.

Our children’s social care inquiry has exposed acute funding pressures, with local authorities forced to prioritise crisis interventions over preventive support due to a £1.2 billion cut in early intervention spending since 2012. The spending review introduces a £555 million transformation fund over three years, including £75 million in 2025-26 and £270 million for a new children’s social care prevention grant. That is a vital step towards effective reform.

The additional £560 million for children’s homes and foster care placements is also welcome. However, the independent review of children’s social care estimated a need for an additional £2.6 billion of funding over four  years. My Committee’s work underscores the urgency of investing in early intervention to reduce the number of children being taken into care and to improve outcomes. \p Rachael Maskell: I am really grateful for the work of the Education Committee, which is excellently chaired by my hon. Friend. Does she agree that cutting the value of grants to families from the adoption and special guardianship support fund will put more pressure on children’s social care and leave children without the vital support they need? \p Helen Hayes: I thank my hon. Friend for her important work in this area. I agree that the cuts made to the adoption and special guardianship support fund have caused great alarm across the adoption, special guardianship and kinship care community. It is important that in reviewing that funding, the Government look at how effective support for adoptive families can be provided across both health and education, and look to give families confidence that the support they rely on and that is needed can be delivered. We know that in the past, adoptive families have not always been able to access the support they need, so I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an urgent and important consideration.

I call on the Government today to provide a clearer analysis of the funding that is needed for children’s social care, as well as plans to bridge the gap between the funding that has been announced to date and the £2.6 billion prescribed by the independent review, so that preventive services that keep families together can be prioritised.

Turning to early years education, the expansion to 30 hours of funded childcare for under-fives from September 2025 is transformative. The main estimate allocates £8.48 billion to the early years block—nearly double the 2023-24 spend—with an additional £1.8 billion in 2025-26. However, the IFS highlights that higher than expected take-up could increase costs by £1 billion annually, and the sector faces a shortfall of 70,000 places and 35,000 staff. The £370 million for 3,000 new nurseries in primary schools is a very positive step, but the Committee has heard concerns about delivery timelines and workforce shortages. Given the rising costs to providers, including minimum wage and national insurance increases, I urge the Minister to clarify how the Department will ensure sufficient capacity and support providers to deliver this ambitious expansion on time. It is also important that the Government give careful consideration to improving quality and consistency in the early years, and to how best to ensure that high-quality early years education maximises the unique opportunity in the first 1,000 days of a child’s life to stop the impacts of disadvantage being embedded for a lifetime.

On skills and further education, the 12.7% increase in the apprenticeships budget to just over £3 billion, alongside £1.2 billion annually by 2028-29 and £625 million for construction skills, signals the Government’s commitment to equipping young people for a changing economy. In our inquiry, however, my Committee heard concerns about the defunding of level 7 apprenticeships, with witnesses including the British Chambers of Commerce warning that it could limit higher-level opportunities and deter participation. The absence of detail on the  lifelong learning entitlement in the spending review is also of concern. The forthcoming post-16 skills and education White Paper must provide a unified and comprehensive vision for skills funding for young people and adults. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision on level 7 and to set out how additional funding will be allocated to maximise impact.

Finally, higher education faces significant challenges, with a 13% real-terms cut to direct teaching funding via the strategic priorities grant, which is now more than 80% lower than 2010-11 levels. My Committee has heard evidence of universities closing courses, reducing repairs and maintenance, and facing financial instability. The Office for Students’ 2025 report warns of declining performance, with recovery reliant on optimistic recruitment forecasts. While the modern industrial strategy promises better targeted funding, our universities—which are anchor institutions supporting thousands of jobs in every town and city that has a university—need urgent support. I therefore repeat the sector’s call for a transformation fund to stabilise universities and enable them to deliver the reforms that are necessary to ensure that they meet future skills needs and continue to contribute to economic growth through research and development and the role they play in building international collaboration.

The Education Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department for Education carefully and hold the Government to account, ensuring that these funds deliver for every child and every learner. I urge Ministers to act swiftly on the promised White Papers, engage with our inquiries, and translate investment into meaningful change. Education is our most powerful lever to bring about a fairer, stronger country; let us ensure that it delivers. \p Damian Hinds: This debate is a very important opportunity to discuss the upcoming cuts in the Department for Education. We know from the estimates document that overall resource departmental expenditure limits are coming down. We are told that that is largely a technical change as a result of changes to the student loan book, but I have to say that these are rather large numbers to come from such technical changes.

From the comprehensive spending review document, we know that like other Departments, the Department for Education has agreed to 5% in savings and efficiencies. What that document does not explain, however, is 5% of what. Presumably, it is not 5% of the entirety of the DFE’s budget, because the DFE is different from many other Departments in that so much of its spend goes directly to schools, colleges and early years settings providing for children. According to the estimates, the DFE’s admin spend is actually increasing. Part of that, of course—in line with so many other private and public sector organisations across the country—is the extra costs imposed by the increase in national insurance contributions, so what are those efficiencies? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today.

So many things have already been cut, including the discretionary spend that helps children to achieve their best, with everything from Latin to computer science and the cadets programme. I do not think there are many more things that can be taken out, but perhaps the Minister can tell us. In particular, I would  like her to reassure us that the primary physical education and sport premium is safe. Will she please do that in winding up? \p Richard Holden: In the past few days, a headteacher in my constituency has told me that their school’s funding is going down significantly in real terms this year. They say that they are now looking at a crisis, with potential staff cuts coming. On top of that, I have heard local providers of early years education saying that they are being even more punitively hit, because private sector providers receive no support with national insurance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for a Labour Government who came in promising to do so much for education, our children are actually seeing very little? \p Damian Hinds: My right hon. Friend makes powerful points, including about the additional unfunded cost pressures for nursery providers—of course, that argument also extends to regular state-funded schools. The one thing I might quibble with is his statement that this Labour Government came in promising to do so much for education. Actually, the Labour manifesto was rather light on commitments on education. The biggest ones were, first of all, the commitment to roll out mental health support teams to cover all schools in the country. On closer examination, that commitment turns out to be not just similar to, but identical to, the policy of the previous Government, which was to roll out mental health support teams to cover all schools in the country.

The second high-profile commitment was about breakfast clubs. The maths on breakfast clubs are something of a mystery to me, because I have heard Ministers repeatedly say that having a breakfast club is going to save parents £450 a year, but they are reimbursing schools £150 a year. Where is the rest of that money supposed to come from? It is also true that some schools—including some in my constituency—already have a breakfast club that is charged at a reasonable rate, so they will lose revenue from their existing breakfast club. Before anyone says, “You have to think about whether it should be charged for or not,” it is worth remembering that the breakfast club provision that already exists is typically reimbursable for families on universal credit at a rate of up to 85%, to the extent that it is childcare that is enabling parents to go to work.

Then, of course, there is the famous—or infamous—commitment to 6,500 additional teachers. Colleagues might remember that that commitment was going to be paid for by the receipts on VAT from private schools. The Government now say that VAT from private schools is going to pay for housing, not for teachers. It is not clear that that policy is going to raise much revenue to spend on anything, given that the most recent figures show a fall in the number of children at independent schools. Those are the Government’s own figures. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon? \p Amanda Martin: A rise in the number of independent schools. \p Damian Hinds: The most recent figures—the Government’s own figures—show a fall of 11,000 in the number of children at independent schools.

Of course, the number of teachers in the state sector is not going up in this country; it is coming down. The Government have tried to have this every possible way. There is a line in their manifesto that is very clear—it comes up more than once. It says that Labour is going to recruit

“6,500 new expert teachers in key subjects”.

When asked repeatedly what key subjects they had in mind, they refused to say. Eventually they said that these teachers will be recruited—I think am I quoting this correctly, but if not absolutely accurately then pretty close—from schools and colleges across the country. Then some numbers came out showing that the number of teachers in primary schools had gone down. Funnily enough, the target was then redefined so that it did not include primary school teachers; it would include only secondary school teachers.

That brings us back to this question: if it is only secondary schools, where teachers have specialist subjects, what are the key subjects that will count towards this number? If the Government just meant any subject, the word “key” would not be there. What do they mean by expert teachers? If they mean simply teachers with qualified teacher status—[Interruption.] I think the Minister might be readying herself to intervene. \p Catherine McKinnell: indicated dissent. \p Damian Hinds: No? If the Government simply mean teachers with qualified teacher status, then I gently remind the Minister of something we covered in Bill Committee, which some colleagues might recall. The number of teachers today who do not have qualified teacher status is 3.1%, which does not sound all that high. What do colleagues suppose it was in May 2010, the previous time that there was a change of Government? The answer is 3.2%. So the number of teachers without qualified teacher status has hardly changed, and to the extent that it has, it has slightly gone down.

We know that other RDEL—revenue spending, effectively—is going up, but it has to cover an awful lot. There is £1 billion-plus in national insurance contribution costs. We know from reports from teachers and headteachers in the sector press that shortfalls in the range of 10% to 35% are being reported. School suppliers are also facing higher national insurance contributions, which will also have a knock-on effect on the cost of other services into those schools. Schools are also picking up the cost of breakfast clubs, and there is an extension in free school meals eligibility and so on. Overall, if we look at the detail in the estimates and the spending review, all these increases are front-loaded—that is to say, for 2024-25 the increase is 6.8%, but that then comes down to 5.2% the following year, and then 3.4%, then 2.1%, and then 1.6%.

The main point I put to the Minister—constructively and co-operatively—is that things are changing significantly in schools because of demographic change. We have reached a point where I do not believe it is legitimate to use the measure of real-terms per pupil funding as the yardstick for whether effective school resourcing is increasing or decreasing. That is because the number of pupils will fall. We know already from TES, which used to be called The Times Educational Supplement, that surplus secondary places have increased by some 50% in just  two years. Labour MPs may well argue—and I kind of hope they do—that when there is a smaller number of children there will obviously be less funding, and there is some logic to that argument, but in a sense it does not matter what arguments they make in this Chamber, because back in their constituencies, if they talk to headteachers, they will hear something different.

When pupil numbers are rising, if real-terms per pupil funding is held constant, that is a net increase in resourcing to the school. When numbers are falling, and even if real-terms per pupil funding is increased by a few per cent, that feels very much like a cut. Let us think about it in the following practical terms. If a primary school class of 27 goes up to 29, that is an increase in revenue to the school of something like £10,000, £11,000 or £12,000, but the vast majority of costs do not change. It works the same way in reverse. If a class moves from 29 pupils to 27, the school loses £10,000 to £12,000, but there are still the same costs, and the teacher is still being paid the same and so on.

In an urban setting, some whole schools may close—some already have. That is a painful process to go through, and no MP wants to represent an area where schools close, but at least that way the numbers can be made to work over a wider area, and some of those schools can convert to nursery schools, I hope, or to special schools. A big secondary school might reduce, say, from an eight-form entry to a six-form entry and manage the numbers that way. For a rural primary school, neither of those things is an option. There are major indivisibilities. Right now, 92% of DFE funding for schools is driven by pupil numbers, and I just do not think that will work over the years ahead. What will Ministers do to reform funding so that it is fair and effective at a time of falling overall pupil numbers? \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: I am going to start with an immediate four-minute time limit. \p Daniel Francis: It is a pleasure to speak in this estimates day debate. I will first declare my usual interest, as my wife is employed as a special educational needs co-ordinator in our local authority in the London borough of Bexley.

I will start with three points about the impact on my constituency. First, I welcome the condition improvement funding, which will see investment in Fairford academy in Barnehurst, Peareswood primary school in Slade Green and Townley grammar school in Bexleyheath.

Two specific Department for Education-led issues impact on my Conservative-controlled local authority in the London borough of Bexley. I was pleased to see in its recent representation that my council welcomes the “fix the market” pillar in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It had the highest overspend of any local authority in London for children’s social care in the previous financial year. My local authority welcomes that move in the Bill, because it wants the market for children’s service placements to be not-for-profit, as seen in Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister comment  on departmental funding for social care settings and how the measures being brought forward in the Bill can help local authorities?

My main point is that I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said about SEN funding. My local authority signed a safety valve agreement with the previous Government because of the rate of our dedicated schools grant. In its recent submission to the Chancellor, the council said that although it is grateful for the current funding, the statutory override for the deficit ends on 31 March 2026, while the DSG is not planned to come out of deficit until 2028-29 at present. That safety valve agreement, which my local authority signed, continues to be overspent, which continues to put significant pressure on the council. It believes that the statutory override needs to be extended by up to three years.

Despite having agreed that with the previous Government, the council’s position is that the statutory override is, at best, only a temporary solution to a more fundamental and long-term challenge for SEN funding. I know the Minister will be bringing forward proposals in this area after the summer break, but some comments later today and some assurances about SEN funding going forward would be deeply welcomed by my local authority and by me. \p Adam Dance: I welcome the investment for our teachers, school buildings, free school meals and SEND support, but I remain concerned about SEND provision in Somerset. I know from personal experience and from listening to constituents just how much of a difference giving SEND children the support they need can make. Teachers go above and beyond to give children in their classes the education they deserve, but we have a SEND system in crisis. It feels like we have gone backwards from when I was at school, which is, I am sorry to say, thanks to the cuts made under the previous Conservative Government over many years. As in so many other areas of life, parents in Yeovil are often left with a losing draw in a postcode lottery, waiting months to get the support their children deserve.

There are two really effective ways that the Department can invest its budget to improve the outcome for SEND children at school. The backlog for education, health and care plans is too high in Somerset, and it is of course right that Somerset council receives more money to urgently support EHCP provision, but not every SEND child needs an EHCP for support. Instead, we urgently need universal screening for neurodiverse conditions at primary schools. That would be a fantastic way of empowering teachers to identify the individual needs of children in their classes and to adapt their teaching. \p Al Pinkerton: I speak to lots of special educational needs co-ordinators in many schools in and around my constituency, and they always tell me that the earlier the diagnosis, the better, and the more a child can be put on a path towards effective learning. Does my hon. Friend regret, as I do, the loss of Sure Start centres, which were one of the very best ways of identifying those learning conditions as early as possible? \p Adam Dance: I totally agree. It is sorry to see that so many of those centres have gone, and we need to invest more.

The earlier that children’s needs are identified and supported, the more likely they are to succeed. Researchers, for instance at University College London, have already developed a screener that goes far beyond the current phonics screening, and it is really cost-effective. I hope that the Government’s schools White Paper, which is due in the autumn, will set out a plan for rolling out such screeners across schools.

Once children’s needs have been identified at school, we need to ensure that our teachers are fully equipped to help. That is why we urgently need better internal teacher training and continuous professional development for teachers and other education professionals, including teaching assistants and senior staff. We must also ensure that SENCOs are represented on senior leadership teams, and are given dedicated time to do their work properly. I hope that the Minister or the Secretary of State will update us on the progress made on teacher training, and tell us when we can expect those teachers to be rolled out.

There can be no better investment in the future of our country than investment in education and young people. Ensuring that everyone has a good-quality education and career always provides a return, as I know from my personal background of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia. I left school having had support, but I was severely bullied, to a point where I was sprayed with deodorant and set alight when I got off the school bus, so I know how vital such support is. Without the support that I was given at school, I would not be here today: I would either be in prison or I would have taken my own life. This is so important—so please, let us get on with universal screening and teacher training for neurodiverse conditions. \p Tim Roca: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for sharing that traumatic experience with us, and to the bravery that it must have taken. I also pay tribute to teachers in my constituency. I met secondary heads just before Christmas, and will meet all our primary school heads together in the coming month.

I am proud that there is so much to welcome in this estimate. I particularly welcome the capital investment in schools across the country, which I think presents a dual opportunity—not just an opportunity to rebuild the crumbling schools that were left to us by our Tory predecessors, but an opportunity to invest to make them greener, so that increased energy efficiency can save money and reduce school bills. I welcome the extra £1 billion to reform and enhance special educational needs and disabilities provision, and I look forward to more announcements about SEND—I share some of the concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). I welcome the investment in further education and apprenticeships, and the breakfast club funding. I congratulate the Ministers, because this means that children will stop going to school hungry and will be given the best chance to learn regardless of their background. The clubs are being  brilliantly piloted by Pott Shrigley church school in my constituency and Disley primary school, where I went myself.

I particularly welcome the funding that has been allocated in the spending review to expand eligibility for free school meals, which means that an extra 1,200 children in Macclesfield will receive free lunches. Each one will mean a life changed and a trajectory altered, breaking down barriers to opportunity and success. However, what the estimate does not contain is a significant real-terms increase for Cheshire East schools. Head teachers in my constituency still tell me that things are tough because of an historical funding formula that leaves Cheshire East as one of the lowest-funded authorities in the country. It receives the 13th lowest share of DSG per mainstream pupil—five grand less than the highest share, and £2,200 less than the highest non-London authority. The high needs block is worse: we rank 12th out of 151 local authorities, receiving two and a half grand less per pupil than the 151st.

This is entirely explained by the school funding formula, and it is an important formula. Schools in metropolitan areas are more expensive to run. Of course schools should receive additional investment based on deprivation, language needs or rurality, but when the basic grant funding does not keep pace with basic costs, things become very tough. Macclesfield is not quite rural enough and not quite deprived enough, without the “English as an additional language” numbers required, which makes life very difficult for head teachers who are trying to balance the books—particularly after 14 years of making cut after cut.

The funding formula works only if there is a significant increase in the basic entitlement, so that all schools, whether in Cheshire East or elsewhere, have a budget that is sufficient to make ends meet. I say that because I have difficult conversations with teachers in my constituency, some of whom are spending as much as 88% of their budgets on fixed staff costs because they are having to retain—and want to retain—hard-working, talented teachers who, in the long run, are more expensive. I recently saw an example of that at Rainow, an excellent primary school in my constituency, which has full classes but is finding it difficult to make the numbers work.

I am grateful for my recent meeting with the Minister to discuss these issues with her, and I welcome the work that the Department is doing in tackling them. Change does not come overnight, and changing a funding formula as historic as this cannot be done overnight, but I hope that everyone who supports fairness and agrees that deprived areas should receive more funds will also agree that every school deserves to receive the basic funding that will enable all our children to be taught, and will ensure that they are not at schools that are finding things tough. I will make no apologies for continuing to fight, on behalf of all my constituents, for fairer funding for all schools. \p Ian Sollom: The Government have set themselves an ambitious and welcome growth mission, with targets including an 80% employment rate and support for 65,000 additional learners a year by 2028-29. However, some of the decisions made of late somewhat undermine those objectives. Along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, I recently  wrote to the Government expressing grave concern about the cuts in the adult skills fund, and the impact that they will have on the Government’s economic growth plans. In her response, the Minister for Skills assured us that adult education was very much a priority.

The Government’s recent announcements about skills funding in the spending review are most welcome, but there is a troubling contradiction in committing to supporting 65,000 additional learners a year while simultaneously cutting the adult skills fund. The Government have invested £625 million to train 60,000 skilled construction workers, recognising that targeted skills investment drives economic growth; that logic should surely apply across all sectors facing skills shortages.

We have no clarity on any improvements in post-18 adult education funding. Mark Robertson, the principal of Cambridge Regional College, which serves my constituency, has said that the cuts in the adult skills fund will mean a £1 million drop in funding for his college, which is unable to meet demand for programmes including healthcare courses, employability training and adult English and maths skills courses because of the lack of available funding. He has warned that the position will be considerably worsened for 2025-26, because the college’s adult skills funding will fall by about 20%. He has said:

“It seems a little counterproductive that, given the drive to reduce immigration to the UK of social care workers by 2028 and the need to train and retrain people employed in areas such as digital skills and retrofit techniques, these priorities are not aligned with a fully joined up policy regarding adult skills funding to enable the need for trained and skilled workers to be met.”

The disconnect between growth ambitions and the funding reality also extends to our universities, which face huge financial pressures and, in some cases, a growing risk of insolvency. Data released recently suggests that up to 72% of higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26 without mitigating action. The causes of this situation are well documented, so I will not go into them, but a combination of factors makes it inevitable that more institutions will be forced to make difficult decisions on staffing across all jobs in the sector, and the economic consequences will extend beyond the campus.

As we know, universities are often the largest employers in their area, and the knock-on economic benefits of students living in the area are substantial. On the doorstep of my constituency is Cambridge University, but we also have Anglia Ruskin University, which delivered over 5,000 degree apprenticeships between 2018 and 2023, as many Members will recognise. I urge the Government to look closely at further education and higher education funding, and to lay out their plans in more detail. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I want to try to get everybody in, so we will have an immediate three-minute time limit. \p Sureena Brackenridge: I start by paying tribute to all those who work with our children and young people, be it in our  nurseries, schools, colleges or universities. As the Member for Wolverhampton North East, a member of the Education Committee and a former deputy headteacher, I want to speak frankly about the urgent need for education spending to be tailored to local need, because that need is undeniable in constituencies like mine.

Maintaining the system as it stands is not an option. We must build an ambitious education system that actively identifies challenges and intervenes early on, and it is not enough to focus only on academic outcomes. Our education system must also equip young people with the skills, confidence and resilience that they need to be prepared for the grit of life and the world of work.

Around 40% of children in Wolverhampton and Willenhall grow up in poverty, and there has been a stark increase in the last decade. These realities hit education hard. In 2024, just 46% of disadvantaged pupils in England met the expected standards at key stage 2, compared with 67% of their peers. At GCSE, the gap is stark: fewer than one in four students on free school meals in Wolverhampton achieve a strong pass in both English and maths. \p Rachel Gilmour: Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that we have a broad exploratory curriculum at GCSE level, and that the recent decision to close off certain subjects for year 9 students at Tiverton high school in my constituency reflects a trend towards a narrowing of academic opportunity, which is rather regrettable? \p Sureena Brackenridge: Although I cannot speak to the hon. Member’s local issues, I welcome the curriculum and assessment review, which will certainly look to change the one-size-fits-all model.

I welcome several commitments in this year’s main estimates, particularly the announcement that households receiving universal credit will be eligible for free school meals from September 2026. Over 500,000 children will benefit, and 100,000 will be lifted out of poverty. For a constituency like mine, that could be life-changing, provided that the roll-out is well funded and properly delivered.

I also welcome the £2.3 billion uplift in core schools funding for 2025-26, but this money must flow to where it is needed most. It cannot simply reinforce the status quo, and it must be targeted if it is to level the playing field for disadvantaged children. Of that money, £1 billion is earmarked for high needs and special educational needs and disabilities provision, with local authorities set to receive 7% to 10% more per head.

Funding increases are helpful, but they must be matched with delivery reforms and accountability. I want to highlight the £370 million investment in school-based nurseries and early education. In constituencies like mine, too many children are starting school already too far behind.

Finally, I want to stress the importance of skills and further education. With a high proportion of local parents working in insecure or low-paid roles, we must ensure that the £1.2 billion annual further education and skills investment helps people to retrain, upskill and access better opportunities.

These estimates contain important and necessary commitments, but the measure of their success will be how effectively they address inequality, and whether   funding truly follows need. I urge the Government to ensure that every element of this year’s education spending reaches the children, the families and the communities who are most in need. \p Edward Morello: The future of our country is being shaped every day in our classrooms, yet we are failing too many children, too many families and too many schools in places like West Dorset because the Government funding formula relies too heavily on deprivation as a metric, and fails to recognise the very real challenges that rural schools face with transport, staffing, access to specialist services, and the additional pressures of isolation.

I recently spoke to the headteacher of Thomas Hardye school in Dorchester, who had previously worked at a school in London. He told me that schools in London receive about £10,000 per pupil. In West Dorset, he has to manage with close to £5,000 per pupil, yet the challenges of delivering education in rural areas are not fewer. In many cases, they are far greater.

Dorset studio school in my constituency serves students from all over Dorset, and 52% of its pupils have special educational needs and disabilities—more than three times the national average. Some 11% have education, health and care plans. These children struggle in mainstream settings, and they need specialist support, skilled teachers and facilities that meet their needs, yet Dorset studio school operates in an outdated building without the most basic facilities. There is neither a hall nor a canteen, and there are no proper changing areas or specialist classrooms. Many pupils with EHCPs cannot access the one-to-one support that they require because of cramped, inadequate spaces, and children with physical disabilities cannot easily move around buildings. In February 2023, funding for the rebuild was finally secured, but delays—including a general election, revised costings and administrative hold-ups—mean that the money has still not been released. Contractors remain on hold, while the staff, parents and pupils remain in limbo. I urge the Government to release the funding, because every day that goes by is another day when these children are not getting the education they deserve.

Many families in West Dorset rely on the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which has been a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable children. These are children who have faced trauma, loss and instability, and who need specialist therapeutic support to heal and thrive, but even this fund has faced cuts and uncertainty. In recent months, adoptive parents, special guardians and kinship carers have feared that the fund would be scrapped, and it was only after sustained pressure that its continuation was confirmed. However, the fair access limit for therapy has been cut from £5,000 to £3,000, and funding for specialist assessments has been withdrawn entirely. Families who rely on consistent long-term care are now faced with an impossible choice, as multi-year funding is not available. We must prevent further cuts, and commit to supporting vulnerable children and their families properly.

Education spending is not just a budget. It is an investment in the next generation, in our country’s future, and in every child’s right to reach their full potential. \p Peter Swallow: As a former teacher, school governor and university lecturer, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on schools, learning and assessment, on classics and on social mobility, may I say how proud I am to stand here as a Labour MP elected on a manifesto commitment to break down barriers to opportunity for all young people?

Bracknell Forest is an incredible place in which to grow up. We have only good and outstanding schools and a fantastic local FE college—Bracknell and Wokingham college—and leafy Berkshire is of course a very lovely corner of the world. However, it would be wrong to suggest that young people in my constituency do not face real challenges. The Sutton Trust has identified that Bracknell has below average social mobility. We have a below average number of 18-year-olds going on to higher education, and the figure is half the rate of Wokingham next door. We are one of the councils in the safety valve programme, and we are facing sustained issues in offering the vital SEND education that is so badly needed.

That is why I am so proud that this Government are working to address these educational inequalities, including giving hard-working teachers in my constituency above inflation pay rises for a second year in a row; addressing school support staff funding through re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body; extending free school meals, with over 3,000 students set to be eligible in Bracknell Forest; and the funding to support Uplands school to open a new school-based nursery. What a difference from the Tory party, which would prefer to fund a tax cut for private schools, and the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who believes SEND students are being massively over-diagnosed.

The SEND crisis demands real action to address it, which is why I particularly welcome the £1 billion extra for SEND in last year’s Budget, including £2.2 million more for Bracknell Forest council to expand provision. I have seen the effect of expanding provision, and I was very proud to open the new special resource provision at Sandhurst school just the other week. However, we need a full range of provision, with mainstream support as well as new special schools, and the Minister will know that I have been lobbying her hard to deliver the proposed special school for autism in Buckler’s Park in my patch. Shamefully, the previous Government promised that school, but without a penny to pay for it. I would like to take this opportunity to once again lobby my hon. Friend to deliver that much-needed service. \p James MacCleary: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on early education and childcare.

Early years providers are facing an escalating financial crisis. The Government’s latest tax increases will add an average of £40,000 a year to staffing costs for early years providers. Hopscotch nurseries—a group operating across Sussex, including in Seaford in my constituency—estimates that increases to employment costs will add £140,000 to its wage bill, and this comes at a time when 84% of nurseries nationwide report that they cannot find suitable staff. Staffing accounts for nearly three  quarters of their running costs, and these financial pressures mean nurseries face closure or fee hikes that families cannot afford.

On recent visits to nurseries in my local community, I have heard from practitioners working with young children every day that, although the Government’s aim to expand funded childcare is laudable, there are simply not enough qualified staff available to deliver it. Not enough applicants, a lack of qualifications, low salaries and a high turnover have led to many nurseries operating at well below capacity. One nursery in Newhaven in my constituency recently told me that it takes only half the number of children it could take. This is not because of a lack of demand—far from it—but because of a lack of qualified staff to care for children safely.

An Early Years Alliance poll of 1,000 nurseries in March found that two in five nurseries are set to reduce the number of Government-funded places for three and four-year-olds to cover rising costs, including the increases to the minimum wage and employer’s national insurance. This is the direct opposite of the Government’s stated desire to expand provision of funded hours in early years.

As a parent of young children myself, I share the frustration at rising childcare fees, with childcare in the UK among the most expensive in the world. Private and voluntary nursery providers, which deliver the majority of early years education, are particularly vulnerable. Without urgent intervention, we risk a mass closure of facilities that are integral not just to child development, but to our local economies and communities. A survey this month by the Early Education and Childcare Coalition showed that nearly 20% of nurseries are operating at a loss.

I urge Ministers to reconsider exempting early years providers from their national insurance increases to prevent nurseries from being pushed into closure. We cannot afford to lose more essential childcare places. This is also a question of opportunity and fairness. Investment in early childhood education has been repeatedly proven to significantly narrow achievement gaps, benefiting disadvantaged children. I support the Government’s aim to expand funded childcare and the provision of free school meals, but without adequate funding for providers, there is a real danger the Government could end up putting nurseries out of business and increase the strain on school budgets breaking even. I implore Ministers to find ways to support our nurseries, including an exemption from the Government’s national insurance hike, to deliver education and support to our children in a way that is financially sustainable for both parents and providers. \p Jennifer Craft: I very much welcome the Government’s investment in education, as demonstrated through the estimates that have come out today. In particular, I want to touch briefly on the increased investment in SEND and high-needs provision to the tune of £1 billion—something I am sure Members are aware is very close to my heart. However, I would like to sound a note of caution and echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and I thank her for her work on the Select Committee on this matter.

Investment alone will not solve the SEND crisis. It is the biggest issue facing schools. It is one of the biggest issues facing councils. Dare I say it, it is one of the biggest issues facing local healthcare authorities—not to get ahead of the next estimates debate. Money alone will not solve it. We need institutional root and branch reform of how the SEND system works. I have said it before and I will say it again: if we fix the SEND system, we fix the education system for every single child. What we need is investment in early years provision.

Every time I visit a primary school, I am confronted by headteachers who say that the level of high-needs SEND provision in key stage 1 has skyrocketed in recent years. We can discuss the reasons behind that. The covid pandemic proved the value of early years intervention in that, by and large, it did not take place for four to five years and we have seen the impact that that has had on young people coming through. So, we need early and quick intervention and investment in early years services. I take umbrage with Members, unfortunately on both sides of the House, who have spoken about over-diagnosis of conditions such as ADHD and autism. We need quick and accurate diagnosis and a treatment pathway to conditions that are on the rise primarily because of historical under-diagnosis. Finding out who the children are who struggle with those conditions and putting in early interventions as quickly as possible, such as speech and language therapy, will save us money in the long run. If we are able to identify children who are in need of additional support in early years, that will save an awful lot of money overall. It will save money in education, health and local authorities.

I very much support the Government’s direction of travel in trying to get as many children in mainstream as possible. I firmly believe that early exposure to children who are different from yourself can only be better for society, by and large. However, I would like to press the Minister for a timescale on when the SEND White Paper will come out. I would welcome her assurances that parents, carers and young people themselves will be meaningfully involved in it. I would also welcome her thoughts on how we ensure all schools share an equal load when it comes to SEND provision. \p Rebecca Smith: I want to talk about the real-life impacts of the decisions in the education estimates, and specifically, due to the short amount of time, on school funding.

There is a village in my constituency called Buckland Monachorum for whom school funding is a particularly pertinent issue. It is in the middle of campaigning, because the local trust responsible for the school is having to restructure from September. That is entirely because of the cuts schools are facing and the knock-on impacts from the Budget that we have heard about. The restructuring is causing huge consternation among parents. There are complaints, a campaign—as I said—and a huge amount of stress, as they face a different future to the one they were expecting.

The Learning Academy Partnership trust, which is responsible for the school, has shared figures with me that highlight the reality of the funding changes that it is facing. It also has one of the schools that falls foul of the f40 inconsistencies we have heard about. It is worth  saying briefly that secondary schools in Devon can see as much as £1 million less in funding than equivalent schools in a city such as Manchester. An hon. Gentleman said earlier that city schools need more money. I hear that, but rural deprivation is a key reality, too, and we need to do more to address it. \p Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful to be cheekily coming in at this point, but the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded authority in the country for SEN. I hope we might hear from the Minister about how the distribution, as well as the quantum, can be made fairer. Unfair distribution exacerbates the strain in the system. \p Rebecca Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that, and there are issues right across the country.

The trust in my constituency is facing financial pressures: teacher pay awards, unfunded beyond 1.7%, mean a 4% increase, costing £359,330; support staff pay awards, unfunded beyond 0.9%, mean a 3.2% increase, costing £295,000; and teacher pension increases, support staff pensions and the national insurance increases have a total cost of £349,000, with £76,000 unfunded due to pupil-based funding. That is a problem right across Devon. We are concerned because it means ultimately that those local village schools will have to take a direct hit, which is something that neither the parents nor the teachers, nor the trusts that are responsible, want to see.

A big part of this issue is about the reduction in the general annual grant—a real-terms reduction of £200,000 in 2025-26, plus 0.5% redirected by Devon local authority to special educational needs. This will have a massive impact on the most vulnerable children right across the community; ultimately, it will not enable them to get the education they require.

Briefly, I want to ask the Minister about the future of schools in places like Dartmoor in Devon, and especially the schools that fall foul of the f40 formula issues. What can the Minister do to reassure the parents, teachers, other staff and children, most importantly, whom I represent, who will ultimately pay the price for these cuts, intentional or not? What reassurances can she offer in response to their pleas and my pleas for children and young people in South West Devon to have the funding they need for the future they deserve? What reassurances can she provide to me that that will take place? \p Amanda Martin: In Portsmouth North, we know that education does not just open doors, but transforms lives. I welcome this Government’s commitment to rebuilding the foundations of the education system.

Before entering this House, I was a teacher, and I have seen at first hand the power that education has to transform individual lives and whole communities, and how Government policy can impact it negatively or positively. In Portsmouth, sadly, that power has often been held back by under-investment, postcode inequality and a lack of opportunity for those outside the traditional academic path.

I am proud that more than 6,500 children in Portsmouth will benefit from Labour’s expansion of free school meals and that teacher pay is rising—by 5.5% last year and 4% this year—recognising the dedication of staff across our schools. Combined with rising attendance and the return of 3 million more school days, that shows that Labour’s plan is working.

It makes me cross when those on the Opposition Benches talk about trade union baron pay rises, when it is actually our teachers, doctors and armed forces who got those long-awaited pay rises, which were denied by the previous Government. It is time those on the Opposition Benches were honest about that. [Interruption.] \p Roger Gale: Order. \p Amanda Martin: Children with educational needs in Portsmouth still face long waits and a shortage of school places; families are waiting, and schools are stretched. Can the Minister set out how the Department is working with local authorities to expand high-quality provision in areas such as Portsmouth, and whether the spending review includes targeted capital or revenue support for this area?

If education is to drive growth, skills reform must be front and centre, and I am glad that is part of Labour’s priority. Colleges are central to this. Students and staff at Portsmouth college are eager to do more, but need the right investment. Ambition is vital, because the role of education is not just social, but economic. The spending review must be understood as part of the wider industrial strategy that Labour is delivering. Skills reform, youth hubs and the creation of Skills England are vital tools to align training with the future of our jobs, and the Department must ensure that schools, colleges and businesses are integrated into this strategy.

We also need to get serious about apprenticeships—not just for school leavers, but for older learners and those changing careers. We need to talk about access, because apprenticeships must work for everybody. I have heard from constituents in their 20s and 30s and beyond who want to reskill, but cannot afford the drop in income. Although it may seem radical, I wonder whether the Minister would consider a means-tested apprenticeship loan system similar to student finance with an automated repayment tied into income above the living wage. That kind of support could transform access for working parents, carers and those who want to change their career.

As a Government Member and a member of the Education Committee, I am proud of the Government’s work. The spending review lays solid foundations, but there is a long way to go. Portsmouth North is a place of talent, determination and potential. Labour’s plan is already delivering change, but if we truly want an economy built on skills and a society built on fairness, we must keep pushing forward. \p Claire Young: As we know, not all local education authorities are created equal. For those like South Gloucestershire, where schools are among the lowest funded in the country, the average rise quoted will not make up for years of underfunding. As I recently raised in this House, it is reported that two thirds of South Gloucestershire schools will be in the red next year, which is having a massive impact on children and young people in my constituency.

I shall set out some of the pressures that are making that situation worse and ask the Minister how the spending review will help to tackle them. The first is the underfunding of staff costs. The Government are not fully funding the 4% pay-rise for teachers and are expecting schools to find a quarter of the amount from efficiencies within their budgets. Coupled with the underfunded national insurance reimbursement, this is placing a massive pressure on budgets. Can the Minister explain what these efficiencies would look like. I can tell her what things already look like in our schools before these cuts. In my local schools, clubs, trips and activities have been axed. Qualified teaching assistants have been replaced by cheaper apprentices. Class sizes have been breached and staff shared across year groups, or even across several schools. Each school will be asked to cough up tens of thousands of pounds that they simply do not have, and this will disproportionately hit small rural schools where the staff budget makes up a high proportion of the total.

SEND pose challenges nationwide, but areas such as South Gloucestershire where school funding is lowest and where schools have struggled with a huge high-needs deficit, are hit particularly hard. The spending review says in relation to SEND that the Government will

“set out further details on supporting local authorities as we transition to a reformed system as part of the upcoming local government funding reform consultation.”

There is, however, no reference to the legacy safety valve agreements. The two-year extension of the statutory override is a temporary relief and does not solve the underlying problem. Schools and local authorities need to be able to plan ahead, so what assurances can the Minister give authorities such as South Gloucestershire whose safety valve agreements are coming to an end, and when will those authorities have certainty about the future funding arrangements? \p Helen Maguire: Councils are being asked to deliver SEND services without sufficient funding, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and that creates a postcode lottery for families, with children waiting months to receive support. Does she agree that we urgently need SEND funding reform, including removing the £6,000 school contribution to end the postcode lottery, so that we can deliver the support that children need? \p Claire Young: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Schools are disincentivised from taking action on special educational needs if they know that they have to fund the first £6,000.

Finally, I highlight the pressure of free school meals and breakfast clubs. Although the extension of that provision is of course welcome, the funding does not recognise that schools are already having to subsidise school meals due to rising costs, and those subsidies will now increase. Schools in my area tell me that they declined to join the breakfast club pilot due to the lack of funding. One school I spoke to was expecting 67p per child for non-pupil premium children and 88p for pupil premium children. That non-pupil premium price represents less than 15% of the break-even cost for their current breakfast club. Yet again, these schools would have to subsidise at the expense of other activities.

Behind the headline numbers are schools in crisis, especially in constituencies such as mine where they have been routinely underfunded for years. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance for my constituents that the headline figures will translate into fair funding for South Gloucestershire. \p Sarah Smith: Nothing is more important than ensuring that every child in every part of our country has the opportunity to thrive. That is why breaking down the barriers to opportunity is such a key part of this Government’s plan for change We are determined to undo the failure of the previous Government and to see that every school has the necessary resources to offer the education that all our children deserve.

I welcome the estimates. In Hyndburn, the commitment to additional funded early years education will be transformational for family budgets, saving families up to £7,500 a year, and helping mothers such as me to balance careers with family life. Crucially, this will also enable us to achieve the key target of 75% of children achieving a good level of development when they start school, which will equate to over 500,000 more children being school ready across the country.

Furthermore, the £6.7 billion capital investment into our school buildings will support the rebuilding of several schools in Hyndburn, including Hyndburn academy in Rishton and Haslingden high school. It will also help us to tackle the removal of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in Knuzden St Oswald’s primary school and to make other repairs and improvements to a number of other schools across the constituency.

Thanks to this Government’s commitment to increasing access to free school meals, up to 6,590 children in Hyndburn will benefit. This Government understand that children who are well fed are better able to concentrate in the classroom and better able to learn. I know how much it will mean to families across my constituency to be able to save up to £500 a year because of this change. This is a Labour policy, based on Labour values, and it demonstrates the shared commitment of the Chancellor, the Minister and the Secretary of State to ensure that we deliver on our promises to the next generation.

Having worked hard to tackle educational disadvantage for many years, I also know the importance of the regional improvement in standards and excellence teams and the £150,000 being made available to them so that families and communities will no longer be let down year after year without the interventions needed to tackle failing schools where the standards just are not good enough. On the skills agenda, Accrington and Rossendale college has already received £1.5 million of capital. The £1.2 billion commitment for the skills agenda is crucial, and I will be ensuring that young people in Hyndburn benefit directly from it.

There is so much more to talk about, whether it is mental health support, reforming the apprenticeship levy and apprenticeships, reviewing the curriculum and the current approach to assessment or making progress on hiring an additional 6,500 teachers. There is still lots to do— \p Roger Gale: Order. I call Liz Jarvis. \p Liz Jarvis: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents, including the hundreds of families who feel they are being let down by a system that simply is not working. Over the past year, I have heard heartbreaking stories from constituents whose children have been left waiting years for EHCP assessments and the specialist support they desperately need. Hampshire’s SEN service received over 3,800 EHCP requests in the last academic year alone.

My constituent Chrissy’s daughter has struggled severely with reading, writing and confidence. When Chrissy asked for a dyslexia assessment, her daughter’s primary school was unable to provide one, and the family cannot afford private testing. Her daughter has missed days of school due to the sheer fear of going in, becoming physically sick as a result. Natasha, another constituent, told me that she is at her wits’ end trying to secure the right support for her son. He has an EHCP but is still without an autism diagnosis and a specialist placement after over two years of delays and miscommunication. What reassurance can the Minister give my constituents that their children will get the support they need to reach their full potential?

I have also been contacted by constituents who have expressed concern about the cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which has been a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Will the Government consider reversing the cuts to help give all children and young people the best possible future?

I welcome the Government’s decision to expand eligibility for free school meals to all children in households receiving universal credit. It is a long-overdue step in the right direction. To make the policy work in practice, the Government must introduce auto-enrolment and ensure that the expansion in eligibility is fully funded and properly implemented.

I have heard from the headteacher at Chandler’s Ford infant school in my constituency that the funding provided to schools has not kept pace with the actual cost of meals. The cost of delivering meals now exceeds Government funding by £1.11 per meal, which has forced the school to find another £31,468 out of its budget for the financial year. Eastleigh college receives £2.66 per student, but meals are costing the college closer to £5. Have the Government considered the impact on other areas of school budgets, as schools and colleges try to keep up with the increased cost of free school meals, and what provisions are being made to cover the shortfalls?

After years of neglect under the Conservatives, our education system is failing to deliver the outcomes that children deserve, and teachers and parents are having to pick up the pieces. We urgently need a system that works with families, not against them. \p Cameron Thomas: Parents with SEND children across Tewkesbury represent one of the demographics who most consistently contact me. I regularly hold surgeries with desperate parents who feel that they have nowhere left to turn. I have spoken with parents whose children have missed years of education and  whose ability to work has been diluted by the need to care for and teach their children outside the school environment. Many others have spent years awaiting diagnoses and years more acquiring an EHCP, viewing an EHCP as a kind of silver bullet, only to get their children enrolled in a school that simply does not have the additional resources to support them. \p Rachel Gilmour: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Cameron Thomas: I am afraid I will not.

This is a growing, nationwide crisis being experienced by schools and families, and it has secondary effects on the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. Responsibility for SEND provision currently falls to local authorities, but councils across the country are struggling to balance their resources between looking after their people and maintaining their infrastructure. I do not accept that those councils are all at fault—that simply cannot be. In fact, I empathise with those councils that observed this month’s spending review with their heads in their hands.

Last month, I held a Westminster Hall debate where I pointed out that Gloucestershire is among the lowest-funded councils for education in England. I am delighted that the Minister for School Standards announced a review of the national funding formula for 2026-27, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire will be firmly in the Government’s mind when it takes place. I ask the Government to acknowledge that they must address the growing demand for SEND provision and not leave it to local authorities or kick it down the road until 2030.

I ask that the Government investigate and address the root causes of this growing problem and implement systems and processes in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Until they do, local authorities will continue to buckle under demand, our teachers will continue to break and our constituents across the country will continue to suffer. \p Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry to have had to be a little brutal, but we managed to get everybody in. We are, however, 10 minutes over time, so if Front Benchers exercised a little discretion, that would be helpful. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: I congratulate the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), on securing this important debate on the Department’s estimate. Given the constraints you just mentioned, Mr Deputy Speaker, and how the Department’s remit is huge, I want to touch on a couple of areas: day-to-day school budgets and funding to support some of our most vulnerable children. I also hope that the Minister might answer some questions on the recent free school meal announcement.

It is fair to say that since the Labour Government swept to victory a year ago there has been a huge amount of rhetoric about the opportunity mission and putting children at the heart of policymaking, but the  reality on the ground feels a little different. Despite what the Government would have us believe, school budgets across the country are at best frozen and at worst falling into deficit. Years of Conservative mismanagement and underfunding from 2015 onwards—[Interruption.] Conservative Members chunter, but the figures are there. We all know that from 2015 onwards, their mismanagement—[Interruption.] \p Roger Gale: Order. \p Munira Wilson: The Conservatives’ decisions cast a long shadow over our schools and colleges. Although the Government trumpeted £4.7 billion for schools in the spending review, they failed to mention that school budgets will see an increase in real terms of only 0.4% over the spending review period. When I speak to school leaders, as I do regularly, they still express the same level of despair as I heard during the last Parliament, when the Conservatives barely mentioned children or schools.

School leaders are tearing their hair out trying to balance the books while shouldering the double blow of an underfunded rise in employers’ national insurance and underfunded teacher pay rises. One school in my constituency has shared its budget figures with me in detail to show what is really happening. It has about a quarter of a million pounds of salary pressures as a result of the NI and pay rises, yet only an additional £30,000 to fund that hole. The result is that the most vulnerable children will suffer, with learning support assistance and inclusion staff most likely to go to protect teaching staff, who are obviously essential. Although prudence in previous years means that reserves can be drawn on and future capital projects cancelled to keep the lights on this year, the school is looking down the barrel of redundancies in 2026-27. Having seen figures from other schools’ budgets, I know that its situation is not unique.

Following the spending review, the IFS said that schools would need to make efficiencies to the tune of £300 million to £400 million to afford the underfunded teacher pay rises and NI increases. When schools are facing ever-increasing pressures—special educational needs demand, student attendance challenges, behavioural issues and much more—it is ridiculous for the Government to ask them to find efficiencies.

I know that school staff are already straining every sinew to find every penny possible, down to banning things like colour photocopying. It was frankly insulting, therefore, when the written ministerial statement came out just before the May recess, which lectured them on taking responsibility

“to ensure that their funding is spent as efficiently as possible”,—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 48WS.]

as if they do not already do that. Those so-called efficiencies are actually cuts, whether to staff, extracurricular activities, school trips or mental health support. To quote one headteacher from my constituency:

“every year you think you’re going to go into bankruptcy”.

I am not sure that was what the Government meant by their opportunity mission. After the Minister accused me last month of imagining these problems, I hope she will confirm to the House how she expects schools to  cough up the extra money for the teacher pay deal and national insurance. If not, will she go into bat with the Treasury for more?

I want to touch briefly on an issue that a number of my hon. Friends have spoken about: the cuts in grants to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which are measures that will hurt our most vulnerable children. We know that the fund provides therapy for children who, in many cases, have been through deep trauma and who, without significant therapeutic intervention, will struggle to have a fulfilling childhood and life ahead of them. After the fund expired, Ministers were dragged to this place to confirm that it would continue, but they then snuck out announcements over the Easter recess of 40% cuts to the grants.

I know that the Minister will come back and say that, at £50 million, the size of the pot remains the same, but that is simply not the point. If £3,000—that is what the grants have been cut to—cannot fund the therapy a child needs, it might as well be zero. Just speak to the professionals and the unsung heroes who have stepped up as adopters and kinship carers, who are dealing with the consequences of the trauma every day. They feel deeply let down by this Government.

We are not dealing with massive figures here. Indeed, when we look at the billions in the departmental estimates, we are talking about small packages that will make a huge amount of difference, and not just to individual children but to the taxpayer in future, with money saved further down the track. It is not only immoral; it is short-sighted. Halving the Department’s spend on consultancy and advertising would allow Ministers to reinstate grants to previous levels by boosting the fund from £50 million to £75 million. As we debate these estimates, I once again call on the Minister to reverse those cuts. Also, now that the spending review is complete, I call on her to announce the ASGSF settlement for 2026-27 very soon, and by October at the latest, so that families and service providers can plan.

I want to touch briefly on the welcome recent announcement to expand free school meals—a policy for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling and campaigning for many years, and for which we have campaigned alongside many others to ensure it was adopted. Even though it is a welcome announcement, there are a number of questions that need to be addressed. How many children are estimated to be losing out on free school meals as a result of the end of transitional protections? There has been some suggestion from some quarters that children currently in receipt of free school meals will now lose access to pupil premium funding, as well as home-to-school transport. Will the Minister clarify on the record to this House what the position is? We are also still in the dark as to where exactly the money for the free school meal expansion is coming from.

In conclusion, while spinners in the Department for Education have made a good fist of ensuring that the headlines proclaimed that the Department was a victor in the spending review battle, there are still a number of crucial issues hidden beneath the top line. Our schools and our most vulnerable young people have been left struggling. The devil is in the detail. I therefore hope that the Minister can persuade us otherwise and convince us that she really believes in extending opportunity to every child and young person in this country. \p Neil O'Brien: Before the election, Labour said that increasing VAT would pay for more teachers. Even in December, the Chancellor said that

“every single penny of that money will go into our state schools”.

More recently, however, the Prime Minister has claimed that this will instead pay for investment in social housing. He said

“my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools… because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation.”

These statements from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister cannot both be true. They cannot spend every penny on state schools and also spend money on housing, so my first question to Ministers is this: who is not telling the truth? Is it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor? Logically, both statements cannot be true.

Either way, we are not getting the extra teachers. In fact, statistics just came out showing that there are not more teachers, but fewer. There are 400 fewer overall, including 2,900 fewer in primary. Teacher numbers went up 27,000 under the last Government. Now they are down 400 under this Government. It was at that point, when those statistics came out showing that things were going in the wrong direction, that Ministers suddenly and for the first time started saying that the loss of staff in primary schools would no longer count. Primary school teachers no longer count for this Government. They had never said this before until the statistics showed that teacher numbers were falling.

This pathetic attempt to move the goalposts is so corrosive of trust in politics. It is a bit like when the Chancellor said that she was making her unfunded pledge to reverse the disastrous cut to the winter fuel payment because things were going so well with the economy. Everyone knows that is not true. It was so brazen. Let me quote what the Office for Budget Responsibility has said:

“Since the October forecast, developments in outturn data and indicators of business, consumer and market sentiment have, on balance, been negative for the economic outlook”,

and

“borrowing is projected to be £13.1 billion higher in 2029”.

But this Government seem to think that they can say black is white and people will believe them.

In that same brazen spirit, the Secretary of State responded to the statistics showing that there were fewer teachers in our schools by saying in a chirpy tweet:

“We’re getting more teachers into our classrooms.”

Ministers now say that primary schools do not count because pupil numbers are falling, but pupil numbers in primary are now predicted to be higher than when they made that promise. On the same basis, we could equally exclude all the many areas where numbers of pupils are falling in secondary and, indeed, places where numbers in primary are still going up, as in Leicestershire. It is brilliant: if we just ignore all the teachers that are getting the sack, of course teacher numbers are going up. \p Peter Swallow: In the spirit of saying things that are not true and making brazen statements, I wonder whether the hon. Member can get on to the bit of his speech  where he pretends that the Conservative Government invested more in our schools. \p Neil O'Brien: I am glad that the hon. Member has prompted me—he must have a copy of my speech. In the last Parliament, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, real-terms spending per pupil went up by 11%. I thank him for allowing me to make that point.

So why are so many teachers getting the sack? It is partly because that is not the only broken promise. Labour also promised that it would fully compensate schools for the cost of the national insurance increase. The Minister sighs as I say this, and schools around the country will sigh too, because Labour broke that promise. According to the Confederation of Schools Trusts and the Association of School and College Leaders, schools have been left up to 35% short in some cases. With all the broken promises that we have already mentioned, let me check in on another promise. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the answer. The Prime Minister promised two weeks of work experience for all pupils and the Labour manifesto promised £85 million to pay for it. In May the Government told schools to get on and deliver extra work experience. When exactly will schools receive that £85 million?

Schools are not the only bit of the Department for Education where the Government have broken promises. The Secretary of State’s website still says, in a chirpy way:

“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government.”

But Labour has increased fees, not reduced them. The spending review was strangely silent on the subject of tuition fees. I assume that silence can only imply that tuition fees are set to rise in every year of this Parliament. Let me say what that will mean. It will mean that, in 2027, fees will go above £10,000 a year for the first time. It will mean that the total amount borrowed per student taking out the full amount will increase from £59,000 now to £66,000 outside London, and from £69,000 to £77,000 in London. So much for paying less! Ironically, the gain to universities from that broken promise and from that fee hike has been entirely wiped out by yet another broken promise: the decision to increase national insurance, another thing that Labour promised not to do.

That broken promise has also hit nurseries. The Early Years Alliance has said that it is “disappointed” and “frustrated” by the spending review, and the Early Education and Childcare Coalition says that the spending review

“reiterates many promises already made”

and that

“many nurseries and other providers are…running at losses and at brink of closure”.

Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that the funding in the spending review for early years

“may not be enough to meet additional unexpected demand”.

So what does this all look like when we come down from the billions to look at it from the frontline? Sir Jon Coles is the leader of the largest school trust in the country and also a distinguished former senior official in DFE. What does he make of these estimates and this SR? He says that

“education will—for the first time in a spending review—get less growth than the average across all spending departments… The last time we had such a poor three-year cash settlement was the  period 2014-2018, when average cash increases were about 1.8 per cent. But then, inflation averaged 1.5 per cent… it slightly sticks in the throat that HMT are trying to present it as good news… The claim that this is a ‘£2 billion increase in real terms’ is a version of spin I can’t remember seeing before. It relies on treating the financial year before last (pre-election) as the first year of the current spending review period.”

In fact, he says that when all that is stripped away,

“to all intents and purposes, this is a flat real-terms settlement for three years. If, as Schools Week are reporting, the £760 million ‘SEND transformation fund’ is coming out of the core schools budget, then that represents a significant real terms funding cut in school funding.”

Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is correct and it is coming out of core schools spending.

That brings me on to the great suppressed premises in these estimates, which is that DFE assumes that it will save substantial amounts on special needs compared with the trend implied by previous years. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) talked about the cuts to special needs spending. In fact, since 2016, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, spending has increased by £4 billion in real terms—a 60% increase. If that has felt like a cut to the hon. Member, he will not like what is being brewed up by the Treasury now.

The SEND plan will be out this autumn—coincidentally around the time of what looks like an increasingly difficult Budget. So far, DFE Ministers have floated two ideas for the SEND review. The first is to restrict EHCPs only to special schools. That would be a huge change. There are 271,000 children with EHCPs in non-special state schools and a further 37,800 in non-special independent schools, so 60% of the total are not in special schools. Anna Bird, chair of the Disabled Children’s Partnership—a coalition of 120 charities—has said:

“The idea of scrapping Education, Health and Care Plans will terrify families.”

Secondly, on top of that, we learned from a Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care that the Government also plan to push a lot more children from special schools into the mainstream.

There are two big questions about this plan. To say the least, there is a clear tension between these two money-saving ideas. If the Government take away EHCPs in mainstream schools, parents will be a lot less confident when the council presses them to put their child into a mainstream school rather than a special one. Given that the Government have U-turned on the winter fuel payment and now say that the coming welfare vote will, in fact, be a confidence vote in the Prime Minister, it will be interesting to see what eventually issues forth from the DFE. We know from these estimates and the SR that, as Sir Jon Cole says, unless the Government deliver these large, planned savings in special needs, the settlement for schools will become increasingly difficult.

This Government have broken a staggering number of promises incredibly quickly. Ministers seem to believe that they can just say that black is white and that they never meant any of the things they so clearly promised. This debate is about the money side of things, of course, but in terms of reform, things are also going backwards with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will lower standards and smash up 30 years of cross-party reform to appease the trade unions.  Tony Blair once talked about “education, education, education.” What we are now getting is broken promises, broken promises, broken promises. \p Catherine McKinnell: Every child deserves the opportunity to achieve and thrive in education. That is why this Government have—as Labour Governments always do—prioritised education, with the Department’s budget for day-to-day cash spending increasing by almost £6 billion compared with the last financial year. Within that, we have increased the overall core schools budget by £3.7 billion in 2025-26 compared with last year. This real-terms increase in funding per pupil helps underpin our ambition of achieving high and rising standards for all children in all our schools. This investment of £3.7 billion in 2025-26 includes both the £2.3 billion announced at the October Budget, and the £1.4 billion in additional funding being provided to support schools with staff pay awards and with the increases to employer national insurance contributions from April 2025.

The majority of school funding is allocated through the schools national funding formula. In 2025-26, £5.1 billion of the schools NFF has been allocated through deprivation factors, and £8.6 billion will be allocated for additional needs overall—that is, over £1 in every £6 of total core funding through the formula being directed towards the schools facing the most challenging cohorts. The spending review builds on this investment in schools. Across the spending review period, core schools funding—including SEND investment, which I know is a big issue for many Members who have spoken —will increase from £65.3 billion in 2025-26 to £69.5 billion by 2028-29.

I turn to the SEND system, which many Members have spoken passionately about. It is, and has been for too long, on its knees. This Government are determined to face up to the facts: too many families and children are simply not receiving the quality of SEND services and provision that they should expect; they are having to fight for those services; and they are having to wait too long before those services are made available. It is this Government’s ambition for all children and young people with SEND to receive the right support at the right time, so that they can succeed in their education and in moving into adult life. To help us achieve that, we have invested £1 billion more in funding for high needs in 2025-26 than in 2024-25.

We are also providing £740 million of high-needs capital funding in 2025-26, so that local authorities can adapt schools to be more accessible and can build new places, including in specialist facilities within mainstream schools. More than 1.7 million children and young people in England have special educational needs, and the vast majority of those are educated in mainstream settings. We are committed to improving inclusivity, to bringing a new focus on expertise in mainstream settings, and to an inclusive curriculum, so that the vast majority of children can be well supported in mainstream settings, with specialist settings catering to those with the most complex needs. \p Jennifer Craft: I would like the Minister to clarify that the additional support and ambition that she is talking about is to improve the SEN side. For Members who are not aware, the statutory bit is the SEND side, and there will  obviously be improvements in that; but if we improve the SEN side, which is the bit that children do not need an EHCP for, parents will not need to go through that adversarial legal battle, and there will be fewer reasons for people to have to go through what can at times be a truly horrific system. \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I was about to respond to a question that she raised in her very good contribution to this debate. We will set out the details of our approach to SEND reform in a schools White Paper, which we intend to publish in the autumn.

We recognise that we need to support mainstream schools in providing much greater inclusion for children with SEND. We need to commence a phased transition process, which will include working with local authorities to manage their SEND system, including deficits. There will also be an extension to the dedicated schools grant statutory override until the end of 2027-28—an issue that many Members have raised on behalf of their local authorities. We will provide more details by the end of the year, including a plan for supporting local authorities with both historical and accruing deficits.

I turn to teacher training. I was very sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance). He is incredibly brave, and it is important that he has shared that. To respond to his question, high-quality teaching is central to ensuring that all pupils are given the best possible opportunities to achieve. To support all teachers, the Department is implementing a range of teacher training reforms that will ensure that teachers have the skills to help all pupils to succeed.

We are determined to make sure that every family is a stable, loving home, and that no child grows up in poverty, lacks food or warmth or is denied success due to their background. We are determined to turn things around, tackle child poverty and spread growth and opportunity to every family in every corner of the country. The Labour Government have announced that we are extending free school meals to all children from households in receipt of universal credit from September 2026. That will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty and put £500 back in families’ pockets. We are supporting parents through that decisive action, which will improve lives—and that is before the child poverty strategy comes out later this year. Providing over half a million children from disadvantaged backgrounds with a free, nutritious lunch time meal, every school day, will also lead to higher attainment, improved behaviour and better outcomes, which means that children will get the best possible education and chance to succeed in work and life.

We will provide more detail in due course, but decisions such as expanding free school meals do not happen by accident, nor are they simply the outcome of hard work by campaigners outside this place. They are decisions about who we put first in our national life, and who has the first call on our country’s resources. Our Government put children first. Expanding free school meal eligibility is a choice made by this Government, who are determined to secure a brighter tomorrow for our children and ensure excellence everywhere, for all our young people. This Government know that delivering the most equal society—something that we Government Members are determined to make real—is a choice, not something achieved by chance.

On the points hon. Members raised about children’s social care, we are putting children first. This Government are committed to delivering children’s social care reform, to break the cycle of late intervention, and to help more children and families thrive and stay safely together. For 2025-26, the Department has allocated £380 million to deliver children’s social care reform, including £44 million of new investment to support children in kinship and foster care, as announced at the autumn Budget.

Because this Government are determined to ensure that all children have the best start in life, by 2028 we aim for 75% of children to reach a good level of development by the end of reception, which means that approximately 45,000 more children each year will start school ready to learn, thrive and succeed. That is ambitious. No progress has been made on this measure in many years. We are creating 6,000 nursery places in schools across the country through the first wave of 300 school-based nurseries; that is backed by £37 million. \p Munira Wilson: The Minister talked about the Government making choices to prioritise children, and about keeping families together. How will the cuts to grants for therapies for some of the most vulnerable, traumatised children in our society help families stay together? Those children manifest the most challenging behaviours, which result in adoption placement breakdown, and that means worse outcomes for those families. How is that putting children first? \p Catherine McKinnell: The changes that we have made to the fair access limits will ensure that more children have access to the fund, because year-on-year demands have increased. When we brought forward the legislation, which was the biggest overhaul in children’s social care in a generation, the opposition parties voted against it. We are determined to improve the life chances of children, to broaden access, and to ensure support for those that need it, despite our tough fiscal inheritance.

To return to childcare, at the spending review, we announced almost £370 million of further funding to create tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries. Despite the tough decisions we made to get our public finances back on track, we are continuing to invest in early years, and are supporting the delivery of entitlements. We will create a reception-year experience that sets children up for success, and are working with sector leaders to drive high-quality reception practice. We are increasing access to evidence-based programmes teaching early literacy and numeracy skills. We are delivering the largest ever uplift of 45% in the early years pupil premium to better support disadvantaged children at the earliest point in their school lives.

Unfortunately, having taken a couple of interventions, I have gone over my time. To summarise, we have inherited a challenging set of circumstances, but we are determined to change the life chances of children in this country. My final words are of appreciation for everyone working in our education system to support our children and young people. Our shared goal has to be providing the highest-quality outcomes for every child. The Government are investing in education, and we remain committed to renewing the entire system to make our ambitions a reality. We are putting our promises into action, and we are determined to change the lives of children across the country. \p Helen Hayes: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The education and children’s social care system across the country has been well represented, and we have heard contributions about the challenges in SEND, further education, schools, rural areas and early years. Right hon. and hon. Members have welcomed the expansion of free school meals and the introduction of free breakfast clubs.

I thank the Minister for her response, and join her in paying tribute to all the professionals who work so hard every single day to improve the lives of children and young people across the country. I urge her to work very closely with parents as she brings forward SEND reforms, because at the heart of successful reform of the SEND system is the rebuilding of parents’ trust and confidence. The Education Committee will be robust in its continued scrutiny of the Government.

I say gently to the Conservatives that the problems that they are attacking the Government for not solving within a year are the legacy of their 14 years in power. We are talking about trust and confidence in the SEND system; we would build trust and confidence in this place if there was slightly more honest reflection, humility and thoughtfulness on that point.

I again thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and I look forward to further scrutinising the work of the Government.

Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54(2)). \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant document: Second Report of the Health and Social Care Committee, Adult Social Care Reform: the cost of inaction, HC 368.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2026, for expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Care:

(1) further resources, not exceeding £102,988,518,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 871 of Session 2024–25,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £7,761,339,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £116,089,479,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Keir Mather.) \p Roger Gale: The debate will be opened by a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, Paulette Hamilton. \p Paulette Hamilton: I am delighted to open this debate on the Department of Health and Social Care’s main estimate. My remarks will focus on the recent spending review, which includes some welcome funding increases and sets out some ambitious reform objectives. However, it also raises questions about deliverability, particularly of objectives to do with capital investment, efficiency savings and the role of social care.

Let me begin with capital investment. The Government have rightly emphasised the need to shift from analogue to digital systems across the NHS. The increase of nearly 50% in technology and transformation funding will mean that it reaches up to £10 billion by 2028-29, which is a welcome and substantial commitment. However, the NHS has a poor track record on digital transformation. The National Audit Office has highlighted the risks around fragmented delivery, unclear governance and unrealistic timelines, and those lessons remain highly relevant. Its 2020 report on digital transformation in the NHS found that despite £4.7 billion in national funding, many trusts were still reliant on systems that were outdated and not integrated.

The capital budget is being asked to do a great deal more than achieve digital transformation. The Government have committed to the new hospital programme, and to addressing critical infrastructure risks, such as those posed by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Over five years, £30 billion is allocated for maintenance and repair, and £5 billion is allocated for critical risk. However, by the end of the decade, there will be no real-terms uplift in the capital allocations, compared with this year. In fact, in 2027-28, the funding settlement actually falls to £13.5 billion from £14 billion the previous year, meaning that inflation in construction costs and materials will significantly erode its purchasing power. The British Medical Association has warned that current funding cannot cover both the new hospital programme and essential maintenance, and now that programme must also compete for funding with the vital digital transformation. Can the Minister explain how the Department will choose its priorities from those competing essential demands on the capital budget?

Turning to resource spending, the Department’s day-to-day budget will grow by an average of 2.7% per year in real terms. That funding will be used to deliver several welcome commitments, including investment in elective recovery and urgent and emergency care; a £4 billion increase in adult social care funding; 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments annually; 8,500 more mental health staff; and £80 million a year for tobacco cessation programmes. Those are all positive steps. \p Danny Beales: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, as well as for her excellent chairing of the Health Select Committee at the moment and for opening today’s debate. Does she agree that this Government’s record investment in our health service will be vital to turning around the health service after 14 years of under-investment and a lack of reform? As my hon. Friend has touched on, that investment also needs to be targeted to enable the three shifts that the 10-year plan talks about. In particular, we need to reverse the trend of more spending going towards secondary care while less goes to primary care. We need a big uplift in dentistry, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but also in primary care—in GPs—and in pharmacy. \p Paulette Hamilton: Hear, hear. My hon. Friend makes some valuable points, and I agree with every one of them.

Underpinning the settlement I have described, however, is the Government’s pledge to generate £17 billion in efficiency savings over three years, with a staggering £9.1 billion expected in the final year of this Parliament. Critically, those savings have already been factored into the settlement—in effect, they have been spent before they have been delivered. In the light of that, we need absolute confidence that there is a clear and robust plan to generate those savings. The Government are assuming an annual productivity improvement in the NHS of 2%, more than triple the long-term average of 0.6%. They appear to be relying on digital transformation to unlock the bulk of those savings, which is risky, given the history of digital change programmes in the NHS.

Another source of savings is the plan to cut reliance on temporary staff by reducing sickness absence and overhauling staff policies, including limits on agency spending and eliminating the use of agencies for entry-level roles. Again, this is a welcome ambition, but delivering it will be a significant challenge, one that will require meaningful, sustained improvements to staff wellbeing and working conditions. We cannot build a sustainable workforce on good will alone. Therefore, will the Minister say when we can expect an updated and fully costed workforce plan to deliver on these ambitions?

Delivering the reforming elective care for patients plan is also central to achieving those efficiencies. It proposes reforms such as optimising surgical pathways through hubs, streamlining referrals, expanding remote monitoring and reducing unnecessary procedures. The plan assumes a rapid transformation of services, with significant improvements in productivity and patient flow expected within just a few years. That is ambitious, especially given the context of ongoing workforce shortages, ageing infrastructure and rising demand. Reform is essential, but it must be realistic, properly resourced and paced to succeed. We cannot afford to set targets that look good on paper but falter in practice, damaging  morale and patient care. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the projected £17 billion in savings will materialise and be delivered on time? What happens to those additional resources for frontline delivery if those savings are delayed or fall short?

I will also touch on adult social care, which is in desperate need of reform. The Casey commission has an important job to do, but the terms of reference for the first phase of Casey’s work state clearly:

“The commission’s recommendations must remain affordable, operating within the fiscal constraints of Spending Review settlements for the remainder of this Parliament.”

Now that those settlements have been reached, can the Minister provide clarity to the House about precisely what fiscal constraints Baroness Casey’s recommendations will have to conform to? The £4 billion for adult social care announced in the spending review includes an increase to the NHS minimum contributions to the better care fund. \p Andrew George: I thank my fellow member of the Select Committee and stand-in Chair for giving way, and I congratulate her on how she is introducing the issues today. Does she agree that the length of time set for the Casey review to report does not give us a sense of confidence that the Government have injected sufficient urgency to address the serious problems of ensuring that we have a robust social care system that can stand up to the pressures that lie ahead? \p Paulette Hamilton: I thank the hon. Member for that deep and thoughtful point. He is absolutely right. Timescales are an issue, and that is why, as a Select Committee, we are asking the Government a number of questions so that we can scrutinise what is happening and get the information.

My Committee considered the better care fund in our inquiry into adult social care. It was introduced with the aim of driving better integration between health and social care, and shifts resources upstream from NHS acute services. However, the evidence we heard was stark. These resources have been overwhelmingly focused on hospital discharge. While timely discharge is important, that does not match the fund’s original objectives. How will the Government ensure that this increase in funding leads to a greater focus on prevention? The Chancellor referred to the Government’s plan for an adult social care fair pay agreement. Reaching such an agreement is not just desirable but essential. Staff working in care homes are far more likely to live in poverty and deprivation than the average British worker. \p Joe Robertson: The hon. Member is making her points very well, and I congratulate her on her success in bringing this debate to the Chamber. I agree with what she has said about fair pay for social care workers—I support that as well—but does she agree that a fair pay agreement will put undue pressure on providers unless there is some money or financial incentive attached to it so that they are able to meet their fair pay requirement? \p Paulette Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point. The problem is that we in the Committee are waiting for the workforce plan, and we are not sure what is being planned. What the hon. Gentleman has  suggested is desirable, but at this moment we do not know what the workforce plan will throw up. It is possible that what he has suggested is already in the plan; let us just wait and see.

The current position is both morally unacceptable and economically short-sighted, fuelling the workforce crisis. What concrete progress has been made in establishing the fair pay agreement? Can the Minister give the House an update? Will she also tell us whether the funding that is required to pay for this essential agreement will come out of the £4 billion that has been announced for social care?

While both the main estimate and the spending review present a vision of reform, it is clearly a vision built on some highly optimistic assumptions. We need to see robust, detailed plans to deliver the digital transformation and the unprecedented scale of efficiency savings that the Minister is counting on. Without such plans, and without realistic assessments of the challenges, the risk is not just that these reforms will fall short, but that they will do so at the expense of frontline services, patient care, and the morale of our dedicated health and social care workforce.

I urge the Minister to address the specific questions that I have raised today. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Roger Gale: Order. It will not have escaped Members’ notice that we are playing “beat the clock” this afternoon. There is another debate to follow, with a very large number of speakers, and we are going to have to try and split the time between two debates. That means two things. First, after the next speaker I will impose a limit of three minutes on every speaker. The Liberal Democrat Front Bencher has agreed to cut her speech to six minutes and the other two Front Benchers have agreed to cut theirs to eight minutes, with no interventions. Secondly, it is up to Members, but if they intervene, we will not get through this, or else some Members will not be called—and it may be that Members who have spoken in earlier debates will not be called at all. \p Gregory Stafford: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate.

We have learned this week that rather than the Government ensuring that funding reaches the frontline, spending on staff at the Department of Health and Social Care and seven other arm’s length bodies has increased by more than 10% since Labour came to power, while GPs, social care providers and hospices are forced to do more with less.

The situation is further compounded by rising financial pressures. Despite repeated promises that additional funding would improve patient care, the chief financial officer of NHS England has confirmed to the Select Committee that all the extra money allocated to the NHS will be swallowed up by national insurance increases, inflation and pay settlements, which means that none of it will go towards real improvements in frontline care.

The rise in national insurance contributions was supposed to bolster the NHS and social care. In reality, it has landed like an extra tax on providers themselves. GP surgeries, care homes, hospices and community services are all grappling with the additional payroll costs, just as they struggle with surging demand and chronic workforce shortages. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the average GP practice now pays an extra £20,000 a year in national insurance alone. Across the nearly 6,500 practices, that adds up to around £125 million a year—money that could otherwise pay for more than 2 million GP appointments, at a time when patients are struggling to be seen.

Adult social care providers face an equally stark reality. The Nuffield Trust projects that employers will shoulder nearly £940 million in extra national insurance costs in this financial year, on top of the £1.85 billion required to cover the rise in the national living wage. Local councils already face a £665 million shortfall in delivering their legal social care duties. The Government have promised a 3% real-terms rise in NHS revenue spending each year to 2028-29, reaching £232 billion by the end of that financial year, yet despite the headline increases, capital investment is being held flat in real terms. NHS leaders have made it clear that it will not be enough to rebuild or modernise our hospitals, or to fund the facilities required to support more care in the community.

The Health and Social Care Committee’s recent inquiry, “Adult Social Care: the Cost of Inaction”, has drawn attention to the enormous human and economic toll of the Government’s failure to reform the care sector. From the burden of unpaid carers to the economic impact of people leaving the workforce due to unmet care needs, the system is under severe and unsustainable strain, but rather than tackling this issue, the Government have once again kicked social care into the long grass and are waiting for a report from Baroness Casey that will probably not emerge until the very end of the Session. The cross-party talks that this Government promised have been scrapped again.

Although the spending review includes £4 billion in additional adult social care funding and an increase in the NHS minimum contribution to the better care fund, there remains little clarity on how the Government will fund their commitment to deliver a fair pay agreement for care workers. It is also far from clear that the better care fund is currently structured to meet the real needs of the care sector, rather than simply alleviating pressures in primary care. These estimates are not abstract figures; they translate directly into longer waits for elderly patients, overstretched family carers and staff driven to exhaustion.

Can the Minister confirm exactly how much funding the Government will allocate next year to tackle the social care workforce emergency, reduce waiting lists for assessments and services, and ensure that councils can meet their statutory obligations? What concrete recruitment and retention measures will be put in place to attract and retain carers, nurses and support workers in this vital sector, and how much new capital investment will be committed to help providers to modernise facilities and expand capacity to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population? When will the cross-party talks that the Government promised on social care happen? They must happen; otherwise, all the good effort—from Members on both sides of the House—on this issue will  be lost. Finally, with social care vacancies entrenched and NHS productivity still trailing pre-pandemic levels, will the Minister set out what credible workforce and capital investment plans will be included in the forthcoming NHS 10-year plan to address these challenges once and for all?

I pay tribute to all the health and social care workers—employed or voluntary—across this country. This Government, with their massive majority, have a real opportunity to make real changes. They must start doing so now, and quickly. \p Lewis Atkinson: I welcome the estimates and the CSR settlement from the Government —a record settlement for the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS. Given the time constraints, I will focus on three key points: financial management, underlying demand and the prioritisation of spend in the estimates.

We rightly focus on the headline settlements in estimates such as these, but what we do not talk about enough is the importance of good public administration in the Department. In the 19 years that I spent in the NHS before coming to this place, I saw how the previous Government had a sticking-plaster approach not just to politics, but to public administration. Budgets were confirmed at the last minute and planning guidance was outlined at the very last moment of the financial year, meaning that there was no opportunity for NHS leaders and health leaders to plan appropriately for resource spending. I particularly welcome the emphasis the Secretary of State for Health and the new chief executive of NHS England have put on restoring accountability through the foundation trust model and multi-year settlements that mean that, although I am sure NHS colleagues would like more, they at least know and can plan investment and spend-to-save decisions over that period.

Secondly, Members have queried why the NHS seemingly continues to require increases. I draw the House’s attention to the Nuffield Trust’s work showing that this is about not health inflation but underlying health demand. The Nuffield Trust estimates that, as a result of population changes—mainly the ageing of the population—there is a 1.1% increase in demand every year. In addition, advances in technology add a further 1.8% increase in healthcare demand, so there is already a 2.9% increase in underlying demand before inflation, which highlights that the Government’s emphasis on reform accompanying investment is critical.

Finally, to deliver that reform, the investment going in must be very carefully targeted. The evidence base is clear that investment in primary care—and we are fortunate in this country to have a world-leading gatekeeper system of healthcare through general practice—represents the best return on investment in health. Work done by Michael Wood and the NHS Confederation confirms that. Alongside investment in mental health services and wider public health, this creates the best chance for the health system to live within these estimates and to meet our constituents’ expectations. \p Rachel Gilmour: There are very legitimate concerns about rumoured plans to merge integrated care boards across the country. When ICBs  merge, the promise of unified oversight gives way to a bureaucratic structure that prioritises large-scale efficiency over the nuanced understanding of local communities. Each locality and its environs has its unique challenges, such as variable demographics, socioeconomic disparities and distinctive health issues that demand targeted solutions. A merged ICB risks offering one-size-fits-all strategies that overlook the finer details of local care. The resultant dilution in responsiveness not only alienates patients, but stifles innovative local approaches that have proved successful in addressing community-specific challenges. While attempts at driving efficiency are certainly laudable, we risk sacrificing the local approach for local needs.

In my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, community hospitals in Williton, Minehead, Tiverton and Dene Barton in Cotford St Luke are anchor institutions providing essential care for my constituents. Communities in rural areas simply cannot afford to lose them. These facilities are often the only nearby source of medical attention, and that is critical when timely treatment can mean the difference between life and death.

Moreover, community hospitals offer the family and friends of patients the opportunity to visit and check on them without having to travel great distances to do so. As we know, this familiar contact is so often a crucial part of a patient’s journey to recovery. It is certainly true in Tiverton and Minehead that community hospitals help to reduce the health disparities found in rural settings compared with urban centres. Without them, residents in more remote areas would simply not have access to the same level of healthcare as those in more built-up areas. That is why, where possible, we must resist administrative reforms that ignore local distinctiveness, and at the same time invest robustly in the community pharmacy network and community hospitals. \p Ben Coleman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for her excellent speech and for securing the debate.

I am quite excited about Saturday week, not just because it will be my birthday on 5 July—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you so much—but because the national health service will be 77. Yes, it has survived that long. [Interruption.] I have survived slightly less long, I would like the House to think. Despite the years of cuts and chaos which have left the NHS broken, it is not beaten and we are rebuilding it. There is a huge amount to do, but we are making progress. After record funding in our first Budget, I am delighted that the spending review has put the health of our nation first. And, as touched on by colleagues, I am equally delighted that the Government are determined to reform how the NHS works to get a bigger bang for our buck and better outcomes for patients, because we need that.

We know we have masses to do. My hon. Friend set out many of the splendid things we have done so far, including getting waiting lists down to their lowest for two years, which is quite an achievement after only 11 months of this Government. On a more personal level, I am delighted that my constituency is benefiting directly from having a Labour Government. Charing Cross hospital has been given millions of pounds extra to upgrade vital infrastructure, including new MRI scanners,  modernised operating theatres, better energy security and a big refurbishment of the ground and first floors, all under this Government. I also hugely welcome the new investment in GPs in my patch: the Cassidy medical centre, Ashville surgery, Palace surgery in Fulham and the Chelsea practice have all been earmarked for new funding under the Government to improve facilities and help provide better care.

Finally, I am excited by the possibilities of the new neighbourhood health service, which we are looking forward to in the 10-year health plan. Locally, I look forward to playing my full part in bringing together all the local health and social care practitioners, so that my residents get the better healthcare they have been waiting so long for and deserve. While I do that, I will also be working to ensure that we confront health inequalities and end the situation that we have now where people get less good access to health, less good treatment and less good outcomes simply because of their colour, what they earn or their disabilities. We must end that.

The spending review continues the work we have begun of repairing a health system that has been left bruised and battered, down but not out. Combined with the 10-year plan, we will be putting the nation’s health on a better path for the future and creating the change that people so vigorously voted for. \p Steffan Aquarone: In the limited time available, I want to press the Government on a very live and urgent issue, which is the establishment of a dental school at the University of East Anglia. Currently, there is no dental school in the entire east of England. The Government accept that Norfolk is the Sahara of dental deserts. My constituents were excited by the prospect, as early as next September, of Norfolk training its own dentists. Just last week, the General Dental Council gave its approval for the new dental school and work is already under way at the UEA to create the facilities for this training.

Things ground to a halt, however, when the Government were unwilling to allocate the funding to ensure that places would be available in time for the UCAS deadline for 2026 entry, saying that we all needed to wait for the spending review. A frustrating delay, lost time to prepare and perhaps a lost year, but we reluctantly accepted the need to wait to receive this good news. And then the spending review came. And went. And we heard nothing: total radio silence from the Government on the future of this much-needed dental school. I tabled a written question to the Government directly after the review and they have refused to answer it. The silence is causing worries to increase.

There is a clear link between the lack of training opportunities in the east and the massive oral health inequalities we are facing. If we do not train in Norfolk, we cannot retain in Norfolk. People love our area. When they study here, many stay. It would be just the same with dentists. And we need it to be, because in Norfolk and Waveney we have so few dentists that each new one would be required to serve 3,000 people, based on current ratios. It is not tough maths to realise that, with the number of hours in a day and days in a year, people will go a long time without seeing a dentist, if they can get on an NHS list at all.

These are not just numbers and stats, these are real people: the people in my community. I would welcome anyone who is moving the money around spreadsheets in the Treasury or the Department of Health and Social Care to come to explain the dither and delay to their faces—some of which can no longer manage to muster a smile.

The situation has become untenable, but we have the opportunity for real improvement. We have cross-party support across Norfolk’s MPs from all parties, and I know that the Minister responsible, the Minister for Care, gets it—he has heard the stories, and I truly believe he cares. I hope that he can now deliver on the concern and warm words that we have welcomed and deliver us the dental school we need now. \p Connor Rand: Fourteen years of Conservative Government left our national health service on its knees, with waiting lists at record highs, patient satisfaction at record lows and millions living in pain and fear, suffering without the treatment they need.

Turning that around is a mammoth challenge, but thanks to this Government, the green shoots of recovery are there. In my local NHS trust, waiting lists have fallen now for four months in a row. We promised an extra 2 million appointments in our first year, and we have delivered 3.6 million. We have hired an extra 1,700 GPs over the past year and provided much-needed extra investment, including for the Village surgery in Timperley, in my constituency.

However, there is still so much further to go, and the spending review and the settlement it gives the Department is a recognition of that. In delivering a £29 billion increase in annual NHS day-to-day spending over the next four years, the Chancellor has acknowledged the mountain there still is to climb to ensure that our health service is there for us when we need it. Accepting the scale of the challenge and putting forward the money needed to meet it separates this Government from the Opposition parties, which either want to abandon our national health service entirely or forget their record and wish away its problems.

The difficult decisions that this Government have taken have given us the space for record investment, and I am pleased that the Government also acknowledge that that must come with much-needed reform. We have seen it with the scrapping of NHS England and the efficiency savings that will generate, and we have seen it with the £10 billion investment in NHS technology over the next four years.

As part of that effort, may I suggest that, following my conversations with the Secretary of State on this topic, the future of Altrincham Hospital in my constituency is considered very carefully? We lost our minor injuries unit because of the Conservatives’ failure on NHS staffing, and the temporary skin cancer diagnostic hub that occupies its space must be turned into a permanent diagnostic centre.

To conclude, we finally have a spending review settlement that recognises the scale of the challenges facing our national health service, and we finally have a Government who are serious about fixing the problems it faces. Residents across Altrincham and Sale West are already  feeling the benefit of that, with more to come. We have saved the national health service before and, thanks to this Government, we are going to do it all over again. \p Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand). Of course, in this debate we have to reflect on the fact that the Government inherited the NHS in the very worst state in its 77-year history, which the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) reminded us of. The Government must pick up the NHS and try to restore it to the state that we would all like to see.

I approve of the three shifts the Government are proposing—no one could argue against prevention rather than ill health. Obviously we want to see advances in prevention, technology and delivery of services into the community, with better integration and improvements in the workforce plan. With that, however, I would like to see the Government advance the case for safe staffing. When I was last in this place, I was part of a campaign on that, which sought to achieve, for example, a ratio of never more than seven on acute wards—seven acutely ill patients to every registered nurse on acute wards. We should be aiming to try to support staff on the frontline, rather than leaving them under the pressures they currently face where they are seriously understaffed.

There are incredible pressures within the service itself. I know that, at the weekend, the A&E department of the Royal Cornwall hospital had more than 100 patients waiting to be treated, with ambulances often waiting outside. Our ambulance service is currently proposing to cut co-responders from some of our rural areas—where fire service staff support the ambulance service—which is a matter of great concern. The Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust is also facing a £50 million cost improvement programme this year, and many other trusts on the frontline are also facing similar pressures.

The Government must look at the capacity of the nursing home sector, as there are often many unused beds. We talk about the difficulty of discharging patients from a hospital, but there is also the risk of the independent sector cherry-picking the profitable bits of the NHS. We need, above all, to back up our NHS. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), the temporary Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, pointed out, social care is vital. If one in four social care workers are leaving the sector every year, we know that we have a serious crisis. The Casey review cannot come soon enough. \p Anna Dixon: First, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a trustee of the charity Helpforce, a member of the Public Accounts Committee and an officer of the patient safety all-party parliamentary group.

It was a Labour Government who founded the NHS on the principle that it would be there for us when we needed it. Patients in my constituency lost that confidence under the Tory Government. When they rang for a GP in the morning, they were told that it would be three weeks before they could be seen. If they rang 999, they were not confident that the ambulance would arrive.  When they were referred for tests, they would be waiting months rather than weeks. These estimates show that this Labour Government believe in the NHS, believe in its future and can turn it around, so that again it is there when we need it.

The spending review gives an uplift in day-to-day spending as well as a huge rise in capital budgets. It is those capital budgets that will enable the rebuilding of Airedale Hospital, which has been plagued by RAAC, and is vital to my constituents. I have seen at first hand the difference that good-quality primary care facilities can make with the completion of the extension at Grange Park surgery. I know that, with this settlement, the Government will want to see further investment in primary care, and I hope the Minister will confirm that.

It is imperative that this extra spending helps deliver the shifts from treatment to prevention, hospital to community and analogue to digital. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I helped to challenge officials at the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England as to why, despite commitments over many years to community and prevention services, the money had never followed under the Tories. I hope that, with Labour’s NHS 10-year plan, we will make it clear that the money will be there for community services and for prevention. I am very pleased that the Chancellor has put a stop to the raiding of capital budgets to fund everyday expenditure.

These estimates rely on very ambitious productivity savings. At the heart of that is the health of our workforce, because too many are sick and absent from work. Volunteers can make a huge difference to retention because they improve staff wellbeing. Volunteering can also be a route for people to try out a career in healthcare. I urge the Minister to back the initiatives that support the use of volunteers. \p Tom Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Anna Dixon: I will not give way, because we are under a time limit.

In conclusion, I am confident that this funding settlement will help to put the NHS back on track and make it fit for the future. \p Seamus Logan: I rise to set the record straight in Scotland when it comes to the much-vaunted but false largesse of this spin-doctoring Labour Government.

After the autumn statement, the Government spent much time and energy telling the Scottish people how generous they were—the largest settlement in the history of devolution, they said. However, what they did not tell the people of Scotland was that when their inflationary policies were taken into account, driven by their eye-watering borrowing—when we consider pay and prices rises and the punitive employer national insurance increases —the settlement that looked big in cash terms was not so big in real terms. If Scottish Labour Members would spend as much time dealing with the things they were elected to deal with as they spend attacking the Holyrood  Government, they might locate the spine that some Labour Back Benchers seem to have found recently in regard to the welfare Bill.

Turning to the estimates, under the Barnett formula, Scotland’s taxpayers depend on the generosity of the Westminster Treasury, even though it is our money—and do not give me the usual nonsense about higher per capita spend. If the Treasury did its sums correctly to include all our produce, if our needs were properly calculated and our geographic size and rurality compared to our population and demography accounted for, the numbers would be very different.

The results of the spending review and these estimates are not good. The UK Government’s spin on the spending review was so misleading that the independent and well-respected Fraser of Allander Institute said, “We have seen Labour MPs and MSPs describing the spending review event as increasing the block grant by £9.1 billion over the spending review period, but this is a figure that is neither transparent nor helpful”—not my words but those of the institute. Its conclusion, based on the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecast, is that rather than representing a £9.1 billion uplift, Labour’s spending review actually brought in a £700 million cut to Scotland’s funding against May’s central estimate.

Our health service depends not only on our excellent NHS workers but on our infrastructure. That is why it is so disappointing that in the spending review the UK Government imposed a real-terms cut on Scotland’s capital spending in the latter half of the spending review period. In effect, Scotland has been short-changed by more than a billion pounds.

Despite Labour’s continuing austerity in Scotland, the Scottish Government is investing heavily in our health service. Over the past year there has been a significant fall in long waits and an increased amount of GP appointments and surgical procedures—for example, there has been a 50% increase in hip and knee replacements. The SNP will continue to fight for our NHS and against successive Westminster Governments who do not have Scotland’s interests at heart. \p Rebecca Smith: We know that a key part of primary care is community pharmacy. Indeed, that was recognised in the Darzi report, which stated:

“One of the great strengths of the health service in England has been the accessibility of community pharmacy.”

The previous Government committed to community pharmacy through the introduction of Pharmacy First. The Darzi report also highlighted that 1,200 pharmacies have shut their doors since 2017, and increased medicine costs and rising national insurance costs will not be helping. \p Richard Holden: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is not just community pharmacies that are being hammered in this sector but hospices too, such as St Luke’s hospice in Basildon, which is facing a £450,000 rise in its national insurance costs? Does she also agree that Ministers are putting these costs on to pharmacies and charities that cannot make them back, which is absolutely killing community infrastructure in the health service sector? \p Rebecca Smith: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, St Luke’s hospice in my constituency will be facing exactly the same issues.

At risk of closure is Tubb pharmacy in Newton Ferrers in my constituency, which I have raised in this place before. Pharmacist Esi has been helped massively by an incredibly active community. The pharmacy supported a petition I delivered here in Parliament, and it provides essential services to the two rural villages of Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo, but it is seeking Government action in order to secure its future.

While the estimates may highlight a commitment to delivering care closer to home, according to Community Pharmacy England there is still no clear path to the sustainable funding and operational model that is required by community pharmacy. It is needed by community pharmacies such as Tubb in Newton Ferrers, and it is needed by community pharmacists such as Esi. It is needed by the whole country to be able to deliver community pharmacy, Pharmacy First and, ultimately, to relieve pressure on primary care. I urge the Minister to provide this substantial funding for community pharmacy. I know that the Minister agrees that this work is incredibly important, and I urge her to ensure that we bring it to the fore as quickly as possible so that there can be a future for community pharmacy across the country. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Due to time constraints, I must now call the Front Benchers, starting with Helen Morgan. \p Helen Morgan: I congratulate the acting Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), on securing this important debate and on her excellent opening speech on the risks inherent in the spending review settlement.

The Conservatives left our NHS in a disgraceful state that is impacting every one of our constituents. On their watch, people with life-threatening emergencies were left waiting hours for ambulances, hospitals were left to crumble, and accessing a GP became a huge challenge. The collapse of NHS dentistry has left some people pulling out their own teeth at home. It is essential that the new Labour Government are bold and ambitious in turning the NHS and care sectors around. The Liberal Democrats support the principles of the Secretary of State’s three shifts and have stated on many occasions the alternative means we would use to raise the necessary funds, but today’s debate is about how the money should be spent.

I was pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s statement last week incorporated a measure that the Liberal Democrats have long called for, not least in our last Opposition day debate in April: a ringfenced fund for maintenance, to deal with the huge repair backlog that has built up across the NHS estate. However, I must reiterate the need to go faster with the new hospital programme. We know that the Conservatives’ plans were unfunded, but this capital spend must be brought forward so that crumbling hospitals in places like Torbay, Watford, St Helier and Stepping Hill can be rebuilt as soon as possible, because spending billions on maintaining buildings that face demolition in the next 20 years is not a wise use of taxpayers’ money.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the crisis in the NHS—particularly in accident and emergency—cannot be solved unless we transform social care. We have long argued that investment in the NHS will be pouring good money after bad if hospitals cannot discharge patients because there are no care workers to help them recover. The fair pay agreement for care workers is a start, but it will not touch the sides of the yawning abyss of current and forecast vacancies in the care sector. At a bare minimum, we need a higher minimum wage for care staff to stop the sector haemorrhaging workers. It is more urgent than ever that the cross-party talks for which the Government had such enthusiasm at the start of the year are reinstated. The terms of the Casey review, which leaves fundamental restructuring of the care sector to 2036, are not ambitious enough. The review needs to be completed this year, so that meaningful change is not put off while our population ages.

I turn to mental health. The Darzi review outlined in stark terms the fact that mental and physical health are not given parity in the health service; mental ill health takes up 20% of the caseload and only 10% of the funds. Proper investment in mental health is essential to the shift from treatment to prevention. It was disappointing to see the Government abandon mental health waiting list targets and reduce the overall proportion of money spent on mental health, while proclaiming that they were meeting the mental health investment standard because, at integrated care board level, there had been a fractional increase. I urge the Minister to ensure that mental health is given priority, and to ensure that prevention, through early intervention, can bring about improved outcomes.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced a new national investigation of maternity services. I was disappointed that no oral statement was made. Many MPs represent constituents whose families have been left distraught by maternity service failings at Shrewsbury and Telford, East Kent, Morecambe Bay, Nottingham, and potentially other trust areas. Those voices deserve to be heard in Parliament, but that opportunity was denied.

I welcome the inquiry, but remain dismayed at the slow progress since Donna Ockenden’s shocking report into the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust in spring 2022. She recommended 15 immediate and essential actions for national implementation; three years later, that has not happened, and the Government have removed the ringfence from funding intended to ensure safe staffing levels. Her findings were consistent with those after other maternity scandals, and the Government accepted her recommendations. It is vital that the inquiry moves the situation forward and is not used as a distraction tactic to delay real action.

Before concluding, I will raise the subject of the fundamental reorganisation of the NHS, which is being undertaken without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. NHS England announced the decision to slash ICB running costs by 50% by the end of this year, with detailed plans to be submitted by the end of last month. No impact assessment for that drastic change was undertaken by the Department and, as far as I can see, there is no funding from the Treasury for potential redundancy costs and no confirmed redundancy scheme. ICBs will be expected to transfer some statutory duties   to other trusts without that change being on any formal statutory footing. The guidance from the soon-to-be-abolished NHS England has been hastily prepared.

If ICB money can be spent more efficiently, the Secretary of State has our support, but surely such radical change requires scrutiny, particularly when it was not in the Labour manifesto and there has been no White Paper, no consultation, no legislation, and not even a short ministerial statement on the subject. We would all appreciate the opportunity to better understand how the process will improve outcomes for our constituents.

The new Labour Government face an enormous challenge in turning around an NHS left at breaking point by the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats’ job as an effective Opposition party is to urge the new Government to go further, faster, in tackling the issue of access to GPs and dentists, in ending the appalling scandal of corridor care and dangerous ambulance waiting times, and in bringing urgency to the issues of spiralling mental health waiting lists and the crisis in social care. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I congratulate the acting chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), on securing this important debate. It is almost one year since the Labour Government took office. They came to power promising that they had a plan to improve our NHS. However, what they actually had was a plan to get a plan by launching a consultation asking professionals and the public for ideas. The consultation was launched in October last year, and I understand that more than 220,000 people have contributed, but despite it being promised for spring, there is still no sign of it. Will the Minister commit to publishing a plan before the summer recess?

While the Secretary of State considers what the plan should say, over in No. 11 we have seen the Chancellor follow the usual Labour playbook: higher spending, higher borrowing and higher taxes. There will be more funding for the NHS, yet as the chief executive of NHS England noted, the NHS budget is now equivalent to the entire GDP of Portugal, reaching £226 billion in 2028-29. That is around 50% of public spending. It is said that 18th-century Prussia was an army with a state attached to it; 21st-century Britain is at risk of becoming a health service with a country attached to it. This is not the Government’s money; it is taxpayers’ hard-earned cash, yet the Government have provided no clarity—no meaningful detail and no credible plan—on how such vast sums will be used.

In the autumn Budget, an additional £10.6 billion in extra funding was promised for 2025-26. However, Julian Kelly, NHS England’s former chief financial officer, told the Health and Social Care Committee that most of it will be consumed by pay settlements, the national insurance hikes and non-pay inflation. Today, 64% of NHS spending goes towards personnel wages and pensions, which is a far higher proportion than in other comparable systems, but the NHS still faces staff shortages and expensive agency costs. Will the Minister confirm how much of the overall funding will go to salary increases? How much will be diverted into covering  the national insurance increases for hospitals, social care, pharmacies, GPS, NHS contractors and social care providers?

As we speak in this Chamber, resident doctors and nurses are balloting for industrial action. Strikes would only add to the disruption and delay in care for sick and vulnerable people. Do the Government have a plan to minimise the impact of strikes, should they occur?

Let us look at one proposal that the Government have announced: the scrapping of NHS England. This Government by press release announced NHSE abolition without adequate planning. Ministers have dodged basic questions about costs, staffing changes and structural reform. There is, once again, no plan. The details that we know about do not inspire confidence. NHS England has asked the ICBs to reduce their costs by up to 50% by October 2025. ICBs will have to cluster, with the number expected to fall from 42 to 27 in two years. Many have warned that services will be cut, and redundancy payments linked to those restructurings could reach £1 billion in 2025-26. Has the Minister costed that in the Department of Health and Social Care revenue settlement?

The Government promised to restore the 18-week hospital waiting time within this Parliament. However, their departmental modelling shows that only 80% of patients may meet that standard for routine operations. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will deliver that promise?

Moving on to capital spending, the Minister says that she wants to continue the new hospitals programme, albeit more slowly than we would have done, and invest in technology, but capital budgets remain flat in real terms. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation says that this leaves

“a major shortfall in capital funding”.

The Nuffield Trust said that

“it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the government’s…targets.”

Will the Minister explain how they will prioritise, and what will be delivered?

The Government have said that they want to shift funding from hospitals to primary and community care. Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the NHS 10-year plan will delay the planned increase in spending on primary community care until 2035, instead of 2029, as was originally promised? A key part of community care is social care, but as Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, noted,

“social care…hasn’t been given the focus it needs”,

and that is

“a significant blocker on progress for the NHS.”

Cross-party talks on reform have quietly been abandoned in favour of an independent commission led by Baroness Casey, but that process is not due to complete until 2028. Yet again, we see headline-grabbing announcements from the Government, with no delivery plan and no real reform, leaving patients, staff and families waiting for the care they desperately need. The Government aim to deliver £13.8 billion in efficiency savings by ’28-29, with more than £9 billion of that total expected to come from DHSC alone. Will the Minister clarify where, within the Department, those savings will be found, and what impact assessments have supported those decisions?

The Government say that prevention is better than cure, and I agree. A good example is the “Act FAST: face, arms, speech, time” campaign, which we will all be familiar with, but just last week, in an answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister admitted that

“the Government have made reductions in the Department and NHS England’s communications and campaigns.”

Can the Minister tell us which public health campaigns are to be affected?

Finally, the dental contract requires reform. The Government started negotiations a year ago, yet the Public Accounts Committee has noted:

“NHSE and DHSC do not yet know what reform might look like or to what timescales it can be delivered”.

Will the Minister tell us when the Government expect to conclude negotiations and get on with dental reform? In summary, the Government need to stop governing by headline. They need to publish a robust evidence-based plan, and start delivering. \p Karin Smyth: I thank the interim Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for securing this debate, and all colleagues for taking part. I have been asked to condense my comments, so I hope that I can address her questions, but if I do not cover them, we will of course make sure that she has a written response.

We are honest about the challenges facing the health service, and we are serious about solving them. That is why we published the independent review led by Lord Darzi, which provided a full and frank assessment of the state in which the nation’s health service was left by the Conservatives after 14 years of government, aided in the first five years by Liberal Democrat colleagues. That investigation highlighted the critical challenges facing the NHS, and we have heard about more of them today. They include a significant increase in people living with multiple long-term conditions, and growing demands for mental health services, particularly among children and young people. That is why we are taking the steps that we are taking.

The investment we are already making in 2025-26, the outcome of the recent spending review and the forthcoming 10-year health plan will address these root causes by delivering our plan for change commitments, investing in preventive health care and modernising NHS infrastructure, so that we radically reform the NHS. We will deliver three shifts to ensure that the health service can tackle the problems of today—caused by the Conservatives—and of tomorrow. They are: shifting care from hospitals to community; shifting from analogue to digital; and shifting from sickness to prevention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington said that there were highly optimistic assumptions in the planning process, and that robust, detailed plans and efficiency savings were needed if we are to deliver on those assumptions. I agree. I am optimistic about our ability to deliver, but I am also realistic and very focused on delivery. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), I am already seeing improvements, as are most Members in their constituencies. May I wish him a happy birthday for July, while we are here? My hon. Friend the Member for  Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) rightly said that the Labour Government did this before, and we will do it again.

The estimates set the Department of Health and Social Care a resource spending budget of £208.1 billion and a capital DEL—departmental expenditure limit—budget of £13.6 billion, an increase from the 2024-25 supplementary estimates budget of £9.6 billion and £2 billion respectively. On capital, we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) said, reversed the shocking decision by previous Governments to keep raiding capital budgets in order to keep the revenue going. That is why NHS buildings across our constituencies are in the state that they are in, and why we do not have the infrastructure that we need. I was pleased to visit Airedale hospital recently to see the work being done to repair it. On digital and tech, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington will notice that we have a £10 billion dedicated spend for the issues that she quite rightly raised.

The Department covers a wider family of organisations, and I can assure the House that we are focused on all parts of the departmental family to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Everybody here has raised particular issues to do with the NHS, so I will briefly remind Members of the outcome of the spending review that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently announced. The spending review includes £29 billion more day-to-day funding in real terms than in 2023-24 and the largest-ever capital health budget; there will be a £2.3 billion real-terms increase in capital spending over the spending review period. That is our commitment to the British public. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), with his great experience of the health service, said that we need to make sure that we have good public administration. The multi-year settlements can help the system to plan much better.

This record investment puts the NHS on a sustainable footing to deliver for the British people. We will cut waiting lists so that, by the end of the Parliament, 92% of patients will start consultant-led treatment for non-urgent health conditions within 18 weeks, delivering on the Prime Minister’s plan for change commitment to prioritise people’s health. We will support the shift from analogue to digital with the investment of £10 billion in NHS technology and transformation between 2026-27 and 2028-29—an increase of almost 50% from 2025-26. We will repair the NHS estate, continuing to deliver the 25 hospitals, with £30 billion over the next five years for day-to-day maintenance and critical safety risks, including the eradication of RAAC. None of that happened under the Conservatives.

We will enable 2% productivity growth per year, unlocking £17 billion of savings to be reinvested in frontline services. As well as delivery, the British people rightly expect us to ensure value from this huge investment  in the health service. The Secretary of State has marked 2025-26 as a financial reset year with the publication of this year’s planning guidance. He has been clear that all systems must live within their means, exhausting all opportunities to improve productivity, tackle waste and take decisions on how to prioritise resources to best meet the health needs of their local population.

All systems are now planning to achieve a balanced financial position in 2025-26, recognising that £2.2 billion of deficit support has already been provided. We will therefore close the £4.4 billion initial gap in full. Financial plans support the delivery of key operational performance targets for elective, cancer, and urgent and emergency care at a national level set out in the guidance. We are working closely with NHS England on key aspects of delivering that. I assure the Chair of the Select Committee that I meet colleagues from across the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England weekly to go through those plans in a robust manner.

There is a lot to get through, so I am sorry that we have lost a lot of time to respond to colleagues. We are particularly looking at productivity and efficiency targets. We are ensuring that the financial performance and improvement programme for 2025-26 learns the lessons of the past. We will focus on cost variation and on upskilling finance teams and wider leadership to ensure that there is good governance in our reporting practice. We will issue the NHS performance assessment framework and have a targeted approach to recovery because the current model does not work. We are looking at ICB reform, as has been discussed. We want to ensure there is a reduction in the variation of cost across the system so that we can get more care and support to the frontline. We are focusing much more on medium-term planning to have a long-term financially sustainable system for systems and providers.

Thanks to this Government’s record investment, we are taking steps towards fixing the foundations of our NHS to make it fit for the future. We will set out more details on our plans shortly in the forthcoming 10-year plan, which will lead the NHS to meet the challenges set out in the plan for change and build an NHS fit for the future. \p Paulette Hamilton: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. The Health and Social Care Committee will continue to scrutinise the health and social care sectors. The Committee remains united in the view that we need a programme in place to reform social care. The spending review and the funding tells us the scale of the challenge. On 5 July, the NHS will be 77 years old. I want to pay tribute to and thank all the healthcare staff and workers in the NHS and say a big happy birthday to the NHS.

Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2026, for expenditure by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

(1) further resources, not exceeding £22,916,388,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 871 of Session 2024–25,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £5,004,997,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £19,023,317,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Jim McMahon.) \p Nusrat Ghani: The debate will be opened by the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this important and urgent debate. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is responsible for some of the biggest areas that impact all of us every single day, and I welcome the ambitious drive of the Deputy Prime Minister and her Ministers to deliver in those areas.

For too long, we have simply failed to build the homes that people need: the affordable homes for young people stuck at home or in the unaffordable private rented sector; the family homes for people whose kids have outgrown sleeping in the same room; and the social rent homes to get people off the social housing waiting lists and give the 164,000 homeless children a safe and permanent roof over their head.

I welcome that the Department is addressing head-on the financial distress that many local authorities are in. Last year, a record 30 local authorities received so-called exceptional financial support, which allows them to sell long-term assets or take out loans just to pay for their day-to-day costs. Due to the pressures they are under, some councils now have no choice but to hollow out their services in order to deliver vital services for residents. How can that be sustainable in 2025? How can it be fair that local people ultimately pay the price when their councils cannot fix up their town centres and have to cut vital services like bin collections just to make ends meet?

If the Department is going to get to grips with these dual crises and deliver on its ambitions, its plans to address them must be fully funded. When we look at the estimate and the recent spending review, there is good news for affordable housing and social housing, although I do have some questions for the Minister, which I will come to. On local authority finances, however, the Select Committee remains concerned that no new money is on the way. The spending review promises

“an average overall real terms increase in local authority core spending power”,

but only if local authorities increase council tax by the maximum allowable under legislation, passing the buck on to councils and raising the taxes we all pay in our local area.

If the Department is serious about ensuring everyone has access to an affordable home, we must end the decades of failure to build the homes we desperately need. That is why I welcome the Government’s ambition and commitment to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, but evidence to our Select Committee from the sector has been clear: if the Government want to increase house building towards delivering more than 300,000 homes a year and reaching their target, social housing must be a substantial part of that mix. Ministers have said that the 1.5 million target is “stretching”, and the message we have heard from the sector is clear. In November, the Minister for Housing and Planning told us that, rather than a target of 300,000 homes per year over five years,

“The trajectory is an upward one”.

He said:

“The precise curve of that trajectory is dependent on factors like… the spending review settlement”.

We therefore warmly welcome the announcement in the spending review that the next affordable homes programme for 2026 onwards will be worth £39 billion. The estimate provides almost £400 million of uplift for the current affordable homes programme, which runs from 2021 to 2026. It is important that we continue to fund that if we are to reach the aim of 1.5 million new homes, but we need to start the building now, not towards the end of the decade. That is why I would be grateful to get some clarity from the Minister and the Department. Ministers have said they will publish a long-term housing strategy later this year, to set out how they will meet the 1.5 million target. \p Christopher Vince: This morning I met one of my constituents who is a care leaver, and she spoke of the huge challenges she faced in getting housing, partly because of the lack of affordable housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting care leavers needs to be part of the housing strategy? \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my hon. Friend for that really important intervention. It is clear that so many people desperately want to get their foot on the housing ladder and are worried about the precarious nature of private renting, which is why we welcome the Government’s ambition to end no-fault evictions, but there is much more we can do, and it starts with building the homes.

It is important that the Government set out their plan for reaching their target, instead of leaving it too late, so I have three questions for the Minister. First, when will the House have clarity on how much funding will be coming forward in each year of the 10-year affordable homes programme? The Government have said that spending will reach £4 billion a year in 2029-30. What does that mean until then? While the £400 million uplift accounted for the affordable homes programme is welcome, it is not clear that that is a sufficient rise for the Government to achieve their goal of 1.5 million new homes.

Secondly, when will we see the long-term housing strategy? The Government have said that the strategy will be published “later this year”. Now that we have the long-term certainty of 10 years’ worth of funding, housing associations are calling out for clarity—they want to get building the homes that we need.

Thirdly, what discussions is the Department having with Homes England about the design of the new affordable homes programme? What is the Minister’s view on how much of that funding should go to shared ownership or right to buy? My Committee has consistently called on the Department to set out how that target will be achieved by tenure, including the important target of social rented homes.

My Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into local government funding and we have heard that local government continues to be under severe financial strain. Local authorities across the country are being asked to deliver ever more, but simply have not been given adequate funding to do so. I welcome the Department’s day-to-day spending in respect of local government and the uplift of 22%—£2.5 billion overall—according to the proposed estimate.

However, the financial strain councils are facing is almost entirely driven by high-cost, demand-led services, over which councils have little control. Those services, which include the provision of social care and homelessness support, are vital and often relied on by some of the most vulnerable people in our respective areas. The cost of social care has soared over recent years. In 2023-24, local authorities in England spent £20.5 billion on adult social care—19% of the total service net expenditure. If children’s social care is included in that figure, it is over 30% of the total budget.

A significant proportion of the 22% uplift in the estimate comes from new money—over £850 million—for adult social care grants. I welcome that much-needed injection of funding. There is also an uplift of £684 million for children’s social care, but that figure appears to be somewhat inflated by a budget transfer from the Department for Education. While that uplift for the Ministry is welcome, it still may not be enough.

I want to touch briefly on homelessness and temporary accommodation again. Our first inquiry as a Select Committee in this Parliament deliberately chose to look at the sharp end of the housing crisis, and we published reports on children in temporary accommodation and rough sleeping. We found that at the heart of the crisis are over 165,000 homeless children and their families, who are often voiceless, out of sight and stuck in completely unsuitable temporary accommodation. That is also damaging council finances. I have repeated the figure before and I will repeat it again: councils spent £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation in 2023-24, which amounts to London boroughs spending a combined total of £4 million per day on temporary accommodation. That is not sustainable.

The estimate includes over £260 million in funding for the rough sleeping prevention grant, and an uplift of £194 million in the homelessness prevention grant. Again, while these uplifts are a positive step in the right direction, my Committee heard that the restrictions placed on the homelessness prevention grant are quite troubling for some London councils. The new ringfencing introduced for 2025-26 requires almost 50% of that grant to be spent on that specifically. The homelessness situation in the capital is not deceasing and boroughs are spending almost 80% of that funding on temporary accommodation. The Committee urges the Government to engage with councils to solve the issue, to ensure that we do not see a reduction in provision and to address homelessness levels.

The current system also has small, short-term pots of funding. We urge the Department to reform those funding streams to ensure that there is long-term sustainable funding, instead of multiple, short-term funding pots.

My Committee is concerned that there is slow progress on the inter-ministerial group that is developing the strategy. We know that the Department plans to publish that “later this year”. This area may not be in the Minister’s direct remit, but will he be more specific about when we will get that strategy? Given that we cannot end homelessness without building the social homes we need, could the homelessness strategy be published at the same time as the long-term housing strategy?

There is so much to welcome in the estimate for 2025-26. The Government are moving in the right steps and the right directions, but we need to hear the detail of the affordable homes programme funding, especially if we are to deliver a boost to housing before the end of this Parliament. We need to ensure that our local authorities are on a stable footing to provide for the most vulnerable in our society, whether it is those who need adult social care, people sleeping rough or families at risk of homelessness. I welcome the funding commitments outlined in this estimate, but I urge the Government to go further and be more ambitious in their funding and financial support for these priority areas. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my questions. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have far too many speakers, because this debate must conclude at 7 pm. We will have a hard speaking limit of three minutes. Interventions are up to the lead speaker, but if they are not made or taken, I could get everybody in. That is something to keep you going for a bit. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) remaining quiet will help enormously. \p Wendy Morton: I rise to the three-minute challenge. We hear that this is the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. I am sure we all remember the day when we got the keys to our first home and how that felt. We are told there will be £39 billion over 10 years, but the real test is whether it reaches the councils and communities that need it the most. As ever, we need detail and clarity, and once again it is lacking from this Government and these estimates—I fear that is because of their pursuit of their ideologically driven utopia.

Will the Government commit to publishing the regional allocation of local authority housing and affordable homes programme funds, which is critical to understanding the impact on our own communities? We must ensure that funding flows to not just city regions, but towns such as Walsall and the Walsall borough, where my constituency sits. Local authorities must have fair access to the affordable homes programme and to infrastructure support.

I have previously expressed my concerns in a debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill about the lack of democratic accountability that this Government will create in their approach to planning. A further point, which has been expressed by the National Association of Local Councils, is that the Minister’s Department is not proceeding with commissioning new neighbourhood  planning support services from 2025. I feel that that is just another kick in the teeth for local parish and town councils.

I know that the Minister is a good man and brings loads of experience to this place from his time in local government, but I do not believe that his Government are interested in local communities, preferring to drive a coach and horses over our precious green spaces. I look at how Birmingham’s housing targets are being slashed, yet ours across the Walsall borough are being hiked up. Maybe it is because Birmingham is incompetent and cannot empty its bins, but I will leave that for another day.

These are arbitrary, Whitehall-driven and centralised targets. I have long campaigned for development to happen on brownfield first, but that needs real funding for remediation, infrastructure and up-front costs. Under Andy Street’s leadership and a Conservative Government, we showed in the west midlands that we can remediate brownfield sites—look at the Caparo and Harvestime sites—and deliver for local people, but we need funding, which is lacking in this estimate. A failure to remediate is a failure to regenerate our towns, cities, communities and local economies. I have done it in less than three minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Star pupil of the day. \p Julia Buckley: I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for launching last week’s consultation on the fair funding review 2.0. It was a beautiful moment for those of us who represent rural constituencies such as mine in Shrewsbury, because the consultation will ask councils to put forward evidence that explains the additional costs of delivering services across a rural area—the all-important rural sparsity. What does it mean? It means that in Shropshire, we have to travel distances of up to 40 miles. Imagine every person driving for social care and every school transport driving to a special needs school. That can cost up to eight times more than under an urban council.

We must think about our demographics. On average, we are nine years older than the rest of the country. The pressure that that puts on social care means that more than 80% of our budget is already spent just on social care. I worked in local government for 25 years. My job was in local government funding at the regional and local levels, and I can say that everybody who worked with me—from every party and in every rural council—has been lobbying for 20 years for this kind of fairer funding for rurality. My plea goes out to those who are listening that they will engage with their local councils and ask them to send the evidence to this consultation, because this Labour Government are listening to rural areas and delivering for them. \p Calum Miller: I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the important matter of how we spend money on local government, given the huge range of services it provides to each of our constituencies. The residents of Bicester and Woodstock share the pressures that many areas face when it comes to housing and homelessness. Like so many Members  of this House, my surgeries are dominated by those who are unable to access the social housing that they wish—those who are living in inappropriate accommodation, often trying to look after their children in environments in which no child can advance their education. As such, I very much welcome the Government’s words about their ambition in this area.

However, I regret the fact that during the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Government resisted the request from our party that they make a firm commitment to make 150,000 social homes available each year. I very much hope that the Minister will look for a way to implement that goal in practice, even though he resisted the legislative request. I also welcome the fact that the Government have committed to the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824. That campaign, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has run for many years, is coming to fruition. It is so important that we do not criminalise those who are unable to access housing.

I will now turn to the broader issue of financial predictability that our local authorities face. The Minister will know the importance of financial management—indeed, I am sure he is caught up in it almost every day of his working life—but for local authorities to plan, the Government must give them time. As such, could the Minister give us two undertakings: first, that the local government finance settlement will be multi-year, in line with the spending review, and will be set for three years; and secondly, that the draft local government financial settlement on which councils start to plan will be announced much earlier than 18 December as it was last year? That announcement was one of the latest in any year.

In common with many Members, the other theme of my surgeries is the plight of many families who are coping with a child with special educational needs and disabilities who cannot access the services they need. Whether it is a lack of places in special schools or an inability to get the assessments they need to estimate their educational potential, too many young people are being let down. As such, given the huge deficits that have been accumulated in high needs blocks—in Oxfordshire, for example, the figure is £137 million—does the Minister recognise that councils simply cannot wait for an education or schools White Paper in the autumn to begin to understand how they will manage those figures in the future? Can he give some guidance to councils about the Government’s intentions for the next financial year, so that they can start to plan for what could otherwise be deeply destabilising cuts?

Finally, one highlight of local government is how it touches many aspects of our constituents’ lives and provides many diverse services. I call on the Minister to look at the public health grant and its role in providing for preventive healthcare, working closely with the other branches of the health system. We have figures out to 2026, I believe, but predictability about the future of that budget is a matter of huge importance. \p Kim Johnson: It is a pleasure to contribute to today’s estimates debate. I am really pleased that early progress has been made under  this Labour Government, particularly the renewed commitment to invest in our communities, with a focus on addressing the housing crisis and fairer funding for local authorities. I commend Ministers on the shift in direction; however, while this Government are certainly doing more than their predecessors, I would like them to go much further.

I welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation that £39 billion will be invested in a new 10-year affordable homes programme, which provides the opportunity for long-term planning rather than short-term fixes. However, Shelter and the National Housing Federation estimate that we will need to build at least 90,000 new social rent homes every year to meet demand, and while the Government have set a target of 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, they have yet to clarify how many of those homes will be social rent properties. As such, it is vital that the long-term housing strategy—which is expected later this year—provides more detail.

Shelter’s “Brick by Brick” report highlights that people earning up to £30,000 are failing affordability checks for so-called affordable rented properties. We urgently need to redefine affordability and recognise the potential of social housing. I welcome Liverpool city council’s recent housing strategy, which includes a target of 8,000 new homes by 2027, with 20% designated as affordable housing. However, in my constituency, the housing crisis is both acute and immediate. We face a severe shortage of genuinely affordable homes. Too many families are trapped in poor-quality housing, waiting lists are growing, and rent levels are simply unaffordable for those on average incomes. I place on record the ongoing campaign by residents in the Welsh streets against unjustifiable rent hikes imposed by Placefirst. Residents recorded their first major victory with a rent cap of 6%. That was a significant reduction from the 30% that was proposed. I thank the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now and the local councillor, Rahima Farah, for their great campaigning.

Housing delivery does not happen in a vacuum. Local government is the engine room of our communities, and it has been running on empty for far too long. I welcome proposals to redistribute £2 billion in funding from wealthier councils. That is a vital step towards a fairer settlement for local authorities, but its success will depend on swift implementation, transparency and an assurance that no local authority will be worse off. After years of damage, we are beginning to see the rebuilding of local services and investment in our housing stock, but let us not mistake a good start for a job done. The foundations have been laid, and it is encouraging to see progress and further plans are in place. Now, let us build with urgency, with ambition and with the determination that our communities deserve. \p Gagan Mohindra: I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing forward this estimates day debate. It is a pleasure to serve under her stewardship on that Committee.

This country continues to feel the impact of Labour’s disastrous and anti-growth policies. The day-to-day spending of this Department is increasing by more than  £2.4 billion—an increase of 22%—which is welcome, but it is clear that Labour’s plans to save on our planning system and the cost of local government are once again a false promise. The £2.3 billion extra being given in local government resources grants will not help our communities and local people, as £500 million of it is just to fund Labour’s detrimental increase in employer national insurance. That tax is hurting every business up and down this country, and it is placing unsustainable pressure on key sectors, such as the care industry and those who provide early years care.

Labour continues to U-turn on its commitments and policies. The impact of its changes to personal independence payments and its cruel cuts to winter fuel payments can be seen in the £800 million increase in costs for adult social care. That is yet another example of Labour’s headline mistakes costing money. An additional £399 million has already been allocated for the affordable homes programme, and continual rises for that are unsustainable. Labour will not deliver its target of 1.5 million new homes, with Savills recently predicting that as few as 840,000 homes could be built. That is significantly less than the 2.5 million homes and 750,000 affordable homes built under the last Conservative Government. \p Joe Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the Government’s housing policy is that they are failing to identify the right places to build the right homes? Until they do that, they will not deliver these eyewatering numbers, especially if they are relying on greenfield rural sites. \p Gagan Mohindra: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are fortunate that the Minister has a background in local government, so he understands those pressures. I look forward to further clarification on grey belt and building on brownfield first, which every constituency MP wishes to see, but it is not yet transposed on to local plans and the growth ambitions of this Government.

I was about to come on to green belt and the changes to the national planning policy framework. Those changes will not solve the problems that we all have identified as the bottleneck in increasing development on non-green-belt land. Labour’s policies unfortunately simply cause damage.

In the spring statement, the Chancellor claimed that the planning reforms would be the main driver of the reduction in borrowing that she has promised. However, there is no obvious reduction yet in the money given to local authorities, with the amount estimated for the day-to-day spending of local government up 22% from the main estimate last year. Although the Treasury might celebrate that as being 3% less than budgeted at the spending review, this dramatic increase, along with the increases of 30% in communities day-to-day spending and 27% to the communities capital fund, is simply unsustainable.

Labour continues to show how it prioritises areas where it has support to the detriment of rural areas, such as in my constituency, and areas in need of support around the United Kingdom. The cuts of £101 million in the levelling-up fund and £183 million in the UK shared prosperity fund are disappointing, and the non-delivery of the services grant and the rural services delivery grant will place pressure on services that are already struggling in rural and semi-rural areas such as my constituency, including bus services.

Instead, Labour is rewarding poor financial management by Labour-run councils and mayoralties across the UK, with £823 million being used for a recovery grant and a funding floor and the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester and West Midlands authorities receiving the first integrated settlements, which could cause an increase of over £400 million in spending.

Labour says that it is cutting local government costs by creating unitary authorities, but that is just placing greater control in their hands at the expense of local democracy. This estimate shows how little control Labour has over local government spending—and I will have to finish on that point. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will deal with these matters. \p Chris Curtis: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for calling this important debate. Let me start with what I think should be seen as positive news and welcomed across the Chamber: the once-in-a-generation increase in funding for social housing. We in the Select Committee have heard about some of the dire consequences of the housing crisis that was left to this Government, especially its effect on the thousands of children growing up in temporary accommodation. The extra funding will mean that, finally, the dial will start to move.

I hope that I am not breaking any confidences in saying that the Committee Chair and I were at a dinner with many representatives of the industry on the evening that the spending review was announced. It is, I think, very rare in politics to sit in a room with people who are pretty unconditionally happy with a policy that has been announced—and, in this instance, happy about not just the extra money but the 10-year funding settlement, which I do not think has been mentioned yet, and also the access to remediation funds, which will make a real difference to the number of homes that are built.

This is important for the entire housing sector. The model that we have for building homes in Britain nowadays means that housing funded by section 106 contributions is struggling to be purchased, because the amount provided for social housing has not been good enough. There is real confidence that this funding will start to fix that problem and move us closer to the 1.5 million target, but, while the money is good, I think it important to urge the Government to go as far and as fast as possible with planning reform, and not to row back on the commitments we have made to ensure that the money is spent effectively and efficiently and we can unlock the homes that the country needs. It is also important for us to start to have a conversation about the Building Safety Regulator, which is clearly not working at present and is holding up projects. We will hear back from the new towns taskforce shortly; I hope that the Government will put the necessary funds behind that programme.

It is great news that we have the extra money in the multi-year funding settlement, but most councils will acknowledge that they are still concerned about stretched resources, and, again, it is important for us to go as far and as fast as possible in reforming special educational needs and social care services to ensure that they are fit for the future.

Let me end by saying—because the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution is present—that it is notable that the spending review provides for an increase in the funding pots that are available specifically to combined authorities. We in Milton Keynes feel that the Department has acted rather like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown, so please will the Department redouble its efforts to create combined authorities, not just in Milton Keynes but across the country, so that areas that currently do not have them are not left behind? \p Lee Dillon: I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on securing the debate, and on the robustness of her speech holding the Government to account.

The Department covers many areas and councils themselves cover more than 700 services, but I shall concentrate on housing, hopefully in the spirit of constructive opposition. Like many others who are in the Chamber today, I support the Government’s headline ambition to build 1.5 million homes—it is a goal that I share, as do many in the housing sector—but I remain concerned that the Government are still unwilling, or unable, to answer my question about how many of those homes will be genuinely affordable. Far too many people across the country are priced out of home ownership, with house prices rising at an unsustainable rate. \p Rachel Gilmour: My observation is that there is simply no such thing as affordable housing in my constituency. If someone is earning £12 an hour and £20,000 a year, a house that costs £30,000 is not affordable. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only sort of housing that people can afford in my constituency is social housing? \p Lee Dillon: My hon. Friend will know the needs of her constituency better than I do, but as someone who worked in social housing for 14 years, I will always advocate for the delivery of more social housing units.

In my constituency of Newbury, the average house price in April was £398,000—up by 6.2% on the previous year. Owning a home is fast becoming a distant dream not just in west Berkshire, but across the country. Although I welcome the target for new homes, I urge the Government to make affordability central to their plans.

The homes we build must reflect the needs of real people, not just developers or investors. I was pleased to see the allocation of £39 billion over a 10-year period in the recent spending review—one of the most ambitious long-term investments in affordable housing for decades. I hope that it kick-starts the generational step change that we need to deliver affordable homes, but it must include council homes and social rented homes.

We Liberal Democrats have been clear that we need 150,000 social homes built every year—homes that people can genuinely afford and that are linked to local infrastructure and services. Sadly, with the reduction of neighbourhood planning, that will now be less likely to happen. I challenge the Government to match their ambition by setting their own target for social housing delivery. Without that, our housing mix will be dictated by the private market, and that is simply not a viable solution to the housing crisis we face.

I also welcome the £13.2 billion commitment to the warm homes plan. The decision by the Conservatives to scrap our home installation policies have had a real cost, and an estimated 1.6 million homes have been built with lower energy efficiency and higher bills as a result—a Conservative legacy. With 6.1 million households now in fuel poverty, we must act urgently to fix Britain’s cold and leaky housing stock.

As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) said, the spending review included a 10-year social rent settlement at CPI plus 1%, which I again welcome. Housing associations have long been calling for that, and I am grateful that the Government have listened. That is a positive move, but we must ensure that rents remain affordable and that social landlords are held to account. We cannot allow social rents to drift higher and tenants to be priced out once again, and let us not forget the 1.5 million people who are still waiting for social housing.

As the Member of Parliament for Newbury and a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I will continue to hold this Government to account—not just on how many homes they build, but on how many people they help. \p Daniel Francis: I start by paying tribute to officers and councillors in the London borough of Bexley for all they do. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing today’s debate. For the record, my wife is employed by our local authority as a special educational needs co-ordinator in a local authority school.

I will briefly touch on three things. First, I welcome the record investment in housing, but I remain deeply disappointed that my Conservative-controlled council sold off its housing stock 26 years ago, has no housing revenue account and, through its own development company, has built 126 homes on three sites and has not supplied a single affordable home on any of those sites. The council has used viability assessments to argue that it cannot build affordable homes. In the housing plans that come forward, I hope we can find ways for my local authority to begin to deliver the affordable homes that we desperately need. Hopefully, that will be through the election of a Labour council next year, but we will wait and see—it has been a long time since we have had one in my patch. My local authority is complaining about the ever-dwindling stock of private rented properties that it can purchase, but it needs to turn its attention to the moneys coming forward so that it can finally deliver affordable homes.

Secondly, on local government funding, my council cut 15% of its staff in 2021. It had to sell a building in order to issue redundancy notices and, at the same time, had to come to the previous Government for a capitalisation order. We hear fantasy economics from the Opposition, but let us be clear: the cuts that were made to local authorities happened under a Conservative council and a Conservative Government in my patch. I hope that the fair funding review will lead to some investment, and I know that my council is lobbying hard. There have been demographic changes in my patch, and I hope that we begin to see some investment in local services.

Lastly, as I mentioned in the education debate—and, again, we have heard it before—we need guarantees about the safety valve that will be ending next March. My council did sign a safety valve agreement, but it continues to overspend, despite the commitments my Conservative council made to the previous Conservative Government, and that is a ticking time bomb for my council. On those points of how we can invest in housing, begin to have a fair funding review and look at the safety valve hanging over my council, I would welcome the Minister’s comments. \p Lewis Cocking: I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing this important debate. I congratulate her on her fair and robust approach to leading the Committee, and every now and again she allows me to ask some difficult questions of Government Ministers, for which I am very grateful. All of us on the Committee have taken very seriously our duty of scrutinising the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government over the past year, recognising its widespread responsibilities and the deep impact its decisions have on our constituents right across the country. I wish to mention a couple of those responsibilities.

One of the biggest drivers of the financial difficulties facing councils has been the catastrophic rise in the amount of money spent on children with special educational needs. This is very close to my heart, as I have seen it from both sides. I grew up with a brother and sister who both benefited from SEND provision, and I have also been a local councillor in Hertfordshire. In just 10 years, the number of children in the county with education, health and care plans has grown by a staggering 223%, which is even higher than the 140% national rise. The funding has not kept up. Incredibly, Hertfordshire receives the third lowest funding per head out of every authority in the country. If it was funded at the national average, an extra £47 million would be available for children with the most complex needs across Hertfordshire.

I hope the Minister agrees that it should not matter where in this country someone is born, because the system should have the resources to meet their educational needs. Removing this historical funding formula would be the first step in creating such a system. The Minister will of course point out that the total reorganisation of local government in this country is the answer to these problems, and that the efficiencies promised by huge unitary councils will solve the funding crisis. However, residents of my constituency of Broxbourne already feel that they are getting a bad deal from the county council, so exactly how will forcing them into a much larger council, which will have a much longer list of responsibilities for an even bigger area, help this situation?

As with everything the Government touch, one of the inevitable consequences of this reorganisation will be higher taxes for my constituents. It will be constituents living under Conservative-controlled Broxbourne council who will feel this the most, as they will go from paying the lowest non-parish council tax in the country to, inevitably, a higher charge under a merged authority.

There is no way that efficiencies will cover the extra spending of these bloated authorities. Reorganisation itself is not cost-free, and I am yet to see councils that have gone through a reorganisation come out saying they are awash with cash. I hope the Minister is genuinely listening to the concerns raised in this debate, and will come back with the Department of Education in the near future with genuine solutions to the SEND funding crisis, and ensure that all our constituents have a fair say when local government reorganisation is forced upon them in our areas. \p Andrew Lewin: As the newest member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I want to start with my own thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), who has been such a welcoming Chair and who drives forward our business with passion and conviction.

I will focus my brief remarks on the settlement for social housing, which has the potential to be transformative in our mission to build social and affordable homes at scale. To understand why the challenge is so stark and why the funding is so badly needed, it is right to reflect on recent history. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and the subsequent Conservative Governments made an ideological decision not to build homes for social rent, and their lamentable record stands in contrast to what went before. In the last two years of the previous Labour Administration, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Government built 73,053 homes for social rent, but in the last two years of the Conservative Government, 2022-23 and 2023-24—and those were the best two years—only 19,365 homes were completed, which is a reduction of nearly 75%.

We had 14 wasted years, in which the crisis deepened for the 1.5 million people on social housing waiting lists, for the 164,000 children living in temporary accommodation, and for the countless more living in overcrowded and inadequate homes in the private rented sector. It is a source of pride in Welwyn Hatfield that we have retained significantly more council housing than the national average—just over one in four people in my constituency lives in a social home, and in Peartree ward in Welwyn Garden City that rises to 44%—but that still is not sufficient to meet demand. We have more than 3,000 people on our waiting list and growing numbers living in temporary accommodation—a story familiar to Members representing communities all across the country.

In the spending review, the commitment to investing £39 billion over 10 years in the affordable homes programme was a statement of intent. This is the best financial settlement for social housing in a generation, but its ultimate success will be measured by the homes delivered and the lives changed. As a member of the Select Committee, I want to continue to hear from people on the frontline about what else is needed to act as a catalyst for activity. Do developers have access to the skilled workforce they need to scale up development? Is the priority to bring forward stalled sites, and how quicky can that be done? Do people in the sector share my experience that demand for homes for social rent is greater than for any other tenure type?

Planning and building homes takes time. There is inevitably a lag between a major funding announcement like this and seeing the impact in the communities we represent, but we have to move as fast as we can. Time is short and the stakes are high. I commend the Government for making this investment. Now, we are all invested in making sure that it delivers results. \p Will Forster: When the Chancellor gave her spending review statement, I was very disappointed that she did not use the words “local authority” or “council” once. Worse still, she granted the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government a tiny increase that we all know does not meet the challenge. It is an unfair deal to those who need housing and those who rely on council services. I know that as the MP for Woking. Sadly, I am the MP for the most indebted bankrupt council in the country. I fear that more councils will follow suit; 25 have said that they may soon issue a section 114 notice, which effectively means bankruptcy. Local government needs investment, so that we can shape our local places and our constituencies to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. I do not want more councils to follow Woking borough council’s route.

The Local Government Association says that there will be an £8 billion funding gap by the end of this Parliament as a result of that financial settlement. That is unacceptable. The Government’s answer to that is to put up council tax by 5% every year for this Parliament. That is unreasonable. We know that council tax is not fair. It is an out-of-date system for funding our local authorities. The fact that it is based on early 1990s property values is not acceptable. Buckingham Palace has a smaller council tax bill than the average three-bedroom semi-detached in Blackpool.

I will ask the Minister three questions. Will he commit to reforming the council tax system to ensure that local government is properly funded, and to ensure that funding is not based on that unfair system? Local government is struggling because of social care. Will he agree to lobby the Government to bring forward their social care review, so that it does not report in three years’ time? It urgently needs to report much sooner, so that we can tackle the social care crisis, which is causing a problem for our NHS, and particularly for local government. Finally, on special educational needs, we MPs hear from so many families that the system is not working. We hear from councils that it is putting them on the brink of insolvency. Does the Minister agree that the Government White Paper and the reforms in the autumn should come with a proper funding solution that supports our vulnerable children and ensures that councils will be financially solvent? \p Joe Powell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Select Committee, for securing the debate.

It is such a relief that we now have a Government who acknowledge the scale of the housing challenge, and are prepared to put serious investment and policy change behind it. In my constituency, there are 3,000 families on the social housing waiting list, and more  than 2,000 people in temporary accommodation. It is those people I think of when we look at these numbers. There are no quick fixes, and we should be honest about that. However, the package in this spending review—the biggest investment in social and genuinely affordable homes for 50 years—is hugely welcome; there is the £39 billion for the affordable homes programme, which has been mentioned, the 10-year rent deal, and the new low-interest loans.

There is also something that I have been advocating for: equal access to the building safety fund for housing associations, so that money can go towards improving homes, not just remediating buildings. I strongly believe that the legacy of Grenfell cannot be that it is harder for people to get a safe and healthy home. I have been clear to the housing associations in my constituency that we expect radical improvements in their services—on repairs, on damp and mould, and on communications. My message to them was that this Government will get them the support that they need to get on a sounder financial footing, but that must be accompanied by a commitment to addressing those failings. We have kept our side of the bargain, so can the Minister outline his expectation that housing associations will invest in their homes following the spending review? Can he also give an update on opening up access to the building safety fund? On building safety, I hope that the Government will take seriously the need to support the Building Safety Regulator in doing its job effectively, and the need to avoid a false choice between building safety and achieving the 1.5 million homes target.

The local government funding formula will have a major impact on our ability to secure safe and healthy homes. The consultation has just opened. I absolutely support the objective of tackling regional inequality in Britain, so I urge the Minister to ensure that any decisions made use accurate, up-to-date data that fairly reflects the reality. \p Noah Law: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Joe Powell: I am sorry; I do not have much time left.

That means including housing costs when analysing deprivation, ensuring that the daytime population is included, and ensuring that the huge pressure on temporary accommodation is factored in. We all want to reduce the need for temporary accommodation, but in the short term, we must not balance the temporary accommodation budget on the back of the everyday services on which our constituents rely; that would be another false choice. The package is a huge step forward, and I congratulate all Ministers on securing it; now is the time to deliver. \p Andrew George: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on the way in which she introduced the debate, and I strongly support everything she said. Indeed, I support the sentiment and ambition of the Government’s announcement of £39 billion in investment. However, the Government must listen to local areas and, if they are intent on delivering their housing targets, must allow those areas to vary the way in which the targets are met.

I will cite the example of my area of Cornwall. It is one of the fastest-growing places in the United Kingdom, almost trebling its housing stock over the past 60 years, but the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse over that period. That does not mean that the answer is building fewer homes; it simply means that the target-setting process is not in itself the solution to the housing problems that such places face. These targets are often based on the delusion that the private market will collude with the Government in driving down the price of its finished product, which is clearly not the case. The Government need to allow that in some places, areas can set targets to meet need. That would mean that planning applicants had to demonstrate how they would meet need, rather than simply building homes that people cannot afford. That is a method that the Government need to consider.

Far too much of what goes into the planning system is about land value speculators taking far too much out of the development process. Setting high housing targets creates high hope value on all the land adjoining all our communities. It is like applying the rural exceptions policy, but around all our areas. We need to address the issues more effectively. The Government need to recognise that many shovel-ready projects are currently unviable, so when money is being considered for future housing projects, they need to look carefully at how they can get things moving very quickly.

In Cornwall, over the past decade, £500 million of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of second and holiday homeowners, because tax incentives and loopholes support that. I urge the Government to look again at wider questions of housing injustice, and at the way that houses are being misdelivered in areas like mine, and to try to work with local communities and the council to ensure that we meet need, rather than developers’ greed. \p Chris Hinchliff: For millions, the affordable housing crisis is the clearest sign that Britain is broken. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement of £39 billion for the affordable homes programme in the spending review. That is a significant investment, but getting the 160,000 homeless children out of temporary accommodation is a national emergency, and it demands urgent action. I ask Ministers to comment, in their response to this debate, on reports that much of this funding is back-loaded until after the next general election, with only relatively modest increases over the next three years.

We cannot ignore the human cost of delay. This is not a static problem, or a building waiting to be repaired. Childhood does not pause. We need to prove to the public that we are tackling the housing crisis now. When we fail to provide the basics of shelter and stability, we undermine the talents and contributions of the next generation. That failure not only harms those children, but diminishes our collective future. I urge Ministers to consider Shelter’s proposal that two thirds of the announced funding be spent in the first five years. Matching this would show true commitment to change, and offer real hope for the future.

We must also ensure that this funding is used to deliver the genuinely affordable homes needed to bring down spiralling waiting lists. My constituents are  understandably hugely cynical; they are promised affordable housing, but so often what gets delivered is anything but. All the evidence shows that it is council housing that is desperately needed by families at the sharp end of the housing crisis. The affordable homes programme should deliver an end to decades of under-investment in housing for working-class communities—and I know that is what Ministers intended. The way to get there is with a clear public commitment that 80% of this investment will be for social rent.

To conclude, I welcome the fact that the headline figures are ambitious and encouraging, but the details must be refined to deliver the homes that workers need. Yes, that means more up-front investment, but there are solutions. Housing developers fuelled this crisis by building at rates that maximised profit while families waited, and by prioritising luxury builds while key workers struggled to find affordable homes. Just as the Government rightly used a windfall tax on oil and gas giants to lower energy bills, we should consider a windfall tax on the supernormal profits of the biggest housing developers. The major developers put profit before the public good, raking in billions while failing to deliver the homes that we need. They should help pay to fix the mess that they helped create. \p Jeevun Sandher: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing forward this debate, and for her excellent chairmanship of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which is evident from the contributions from across the House.

I am here to speak not only about how construction and building homes will help to create hundreds of thousands of good jobs, but about how we need to create millions more if we want everyone here to live a decent life. I am an economist, and I came to this place to ensure that everybody could earn a decent living and have enough money to pay the bills, but we are so far from that today. The average salary for a non-graduate is around £30,000. For two earners to raise two kids, they need to earn £35,000 each, but around 40% of full-time jobs pay less than that. That is 10 million workers who cannot afford a decent life, and those who cannot earn enough are turning away from Labour Members, as they have turned away from Conservative Members.

If we want everyone to have a decent job, the Government must help to create them. We are making a good start with house building. I welcome the £500 million that is going into affordable house building this year, and the £40 billion for the 10 years to come, because construction jobs are good non-graduate jobs. Building those 1.5 million homes means creating good jobs. A skilled construction worker earns £35,000. Around 300,000 of those jobs will be created when we build 1.5 million homes, and another 300,000 more jobs will be created in decarbonising buildings.

That is welcome, but we need to create a lot more good jobs if we want everyone to live a decent life. We need millions more—a lot more than the 600,000 jobs that will be created in the construction of homes and insulation.  This is a job far bigger than housing and local government alone. Good jobs in healthcare, childcare and social care are all needed.

That is the path we should follow—the Government should create good jobs. We should not simply wish that enough good jobs will be created—that is the path we should not follow. In our technological era, growth alone does not automatically create enough good jobs where we need them, either for the people or places that require them. We came to this place to create a better life for all, but that is not possible for almost half of all workers because there are not enough good jobs. We can create hundreds of thousands of good jobs through construction, but we need to create millions more if we want everyone in this country to live a good life. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Vikki Slade: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

Local government funding is in crisis, from social care to special needs, homelessness to high streets. Our councils—whose work impacts us all and who are the backbone of local service delivery—are being pushed to the brink. While the estimate sounds positive, it is way more complicated, just like the work that councils do. The lack of funding is not a new problem. The hollowing-out of local government has been happening for a decade. In my home councils of BCP and Dorset, central funding through the revenue support grant was slashed by between 95% and 98% over that time. The Government’s announcement that central funding for councils with low tax bases will be weighted sort of misses the point. Many councils in the south receive no revenue support grant and are already raising their council tax by the maximum 5% each year. The Government need to talk to the councils they are targeting and review this proposal before they create a new problem.

Local areas are dealing with ageing populations and soaring house prices, and councils risk having no choice but to take money directly from services for the poorest, sickest and most vulnerable. The three-year settlements are welcome to help planning, and the headline £13.5 billion increase in Department funding by 2028-29 sounds positive, but measured against 2025-26 it is actually a real-terms cut of 0.6%. While MHCLG’s day-to-day spending will rise by £2.5 billion, much of this comes through transfers. For example, much of the £857 million for adult social care is reallocated from children’s social care, and the £515 million to cover increased national insurance contributions does not cover the demand.

Adult social care is now the largest spending area for upper-tier authorities. Meanwhile, tensions between the NHS and councils over who funds the sick and elderly are growing, leaving families stuck in the middle. Carers bear the brunt, often being forced to choose between caring and working, which has knock-on effects on the wider economy and carers’ wellbeing. The situation is made worse because independent providers are not covered for the NICs increase. The Nuffield Trust estimates that the increase in national insurance will cost independent  social care employers £940 million this year. Many are handing back contracts, unable to make the numbers add up, which is piling pressures on to councils. I urge the Minister to look closely at the impact of this change. The Liberal Democrats want a social care workforce plan, a royal college of care workers to improve recognition, and a higher carer’s minimum wage. We call on the Government to complete the Casey review within one year instead of three. The elderly, disabled and our NHS deserve better than further delay.

The crisis extends beyond adult care, affecting our youngest children too. SEND provision is, as we know, inconsistent and underfunded. Parents are exhausted, teachers are overwhelmed, and children are being left behind. We are relieved, rather than happy, that the statutory override will continue for another two years, because many councils would face insolvency within months without it, but this merely defers the inevitable. As debts outgrow reserves, councils cannot invest in their communities or drive local growth.

The upcoming White Paper must guarantee every child with an EHCP the support that works for them, make mainstream education more inclusive so that children can stay close to home with their peers, and urgently reform the funding formula. The funding formula does not work. In some areas, the annual base funding per pupil is £2,500 less than in others. Schools have to fund the first £6,000 for any special educational support, but some schools do not get £6,000 a year for a pupil’s whole education. The Liberal Democrats really are begging for that to be resolved. In specialist provision, I have seen independent settings charge more than £100,000 to educate children with moderate needs when a state-maintained special school is doing the same for £20,000; but, without alternatives, councils are forced to pay.

The loss of the £100 million rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to rural councils, so I welcome the consultation on reviewing that, but those councils face not just higher delivery costs but recruitment challenges. It was wrong for the Government to suggest that rural communities do not face the same deprivation—tell that to some of my constituents who have no mains gas and no sewerage, no job opportunities and are miles from anything.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the £267 million for rough sleeping and £194 million for homelessness prevention, and we are pleased that that has been ringfenced, but without a target for social house building, councils remain burdened with the costs of temporary accommodation. It is not just about money: the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recent report revealed that temporary housing is detrimental to our children’s health, with it being a factor in the deaths of 74 children, including 58 infants, in the last five years. It also damages the developmental, mental health and life chances of every child in that situation. We therefore welcome the £39 billion investment in affordable housing, but we are disappointed to see how backloaded it is, meaning that many families will wait up to 10 years finally to get a roof over their heads.

Finally, I want to address devolution. The Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, so we are disappointed that the Government have cancelled funding for neighbourhood plans and are discouraging the formation of new town and parish councils where there is local government reorganisation. Instead, we are seeing  top-down area committees with no statutory powers. The spending review mentions funding for mayoral areas, but that benefits only those areas that are ready to go. What about the areas outside wave one such as Kent and Medway, or Wessex? Where is their support in the meantime? Our local councils deliver every day, but they cannot do it alone, so I urge the Government please to provide fair funding and real devolution for those areas. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p David Simmonds: It has been a wide-ranging debate. I add my congratulations to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing it and introducing it so well. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking)—for sharing both their views, brought from their long experience in local government, and their great passion for their constituencies.

I will start with the striking speech by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), who set out many of the challenges around local government finance in her constituency. I came away from that speech thinking, “Just wait until she finds out which party in government slashed the £8.8 million of rural delivery grant from her local authority, which has led it to say it is having to consult on reducing bin collections further—to just once every three weeks—and to literally turning the lights off in Shrewsbury to save the money necessary to balance the books following this local government finance settlement.”

When we come to the Chamber to debate the resource departmental expenditure limit and the capital departmental expenditure limit, it is really important, as hon. Members have done, that we set out the story behind that: what it means in our constituencies for our local authorities. When we started the debate, we knew that it was against a backdrop of a Budget last year that left councils net £1.5 billion worse off because of the rise in national insurance contributions. That alone took £1.5 billion out of local authorities’ capacity. Since then, we have seen a developing backdrop of rising inflation, which is now pushing 3.5%, and deteriorating economic conditions —in particular, rising Government borrowing—which may be one of the reasons why the Government are seeking to push back borrowing the capital that funds the housing programme in the hope that costs will come down in due course. But all these things are imposing rising costs on our local authorities.

I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who I know has huge experience in local government. However, as Members from across the House have demonstrated in their contributions, the impact of the Department for Education’s decisions on SEND, the impact of the Home Office’s decisions on asylum funding—for Hillingdon, which serves about two-thirds of my constituency, that is, on its own, an additional £5 million per annum cost pressure—and the impact of Department of Health  and Social Care decisions on public health, which have a significant impact on the costs local authorities face, are all accumulating.

That leaves the Minister and the Government with a series of difficult questions that they need to address. Having set out the existence of that substantial black hole in council budgets, and the black hole that a number of Members on all sides have referred to in housing delivery, the fact that the visible symptoms of council services, such as rough sleeping, are racing up—according to St Mungo’s charity, rough sleeping has risen by 27% in London alone—means we know that our local authorities face a significant challenge.

The questions that I hope the Minister will begin to address in his summing up are around the underlying financial assumptions behind the figures that are set out in the report. We know that there is always a tendency in Whitehall to see local government finance as an opportunity to centralise credit by announcing the positive things that we want to see money spent on and localising the blame by forcing councils to fund that through rising fees and charges or increases to council tax. When it comes to ensuring that the 1.5 million homes in our country that already have planning permission are delivered, there needs to be a relentless focus on getting that money out of the door and into the hands of local authorities and others to ensure that those homes can be delivered. The Opposition will scrutinise relentlessly, in search of the evidence that that is happening.

Our councils face this challenge against the backdrop of a potentially costly and disruptive reorganisation. We know that many councils have come forward with their own proposals for local government reorganisation. [Interruption.] The Minister says “All councils” from a sedentary position. All councils were asked, invited or, perhaps, required to put forward their proposals for reorganisation. However, we know that asking, for example, all the planning officers in the country to reapply for their jobs is unlikely to aid that focus on housing delivery.

Will the Minister clarify the following points in his response? First, will he set out the Department’s underlying assumptions on council tax rises, fees and charges, and discounts? It seems clear from the analysis being done by local authority finance officers that the underlying assumption is that all those things will rise in every council to the maximum possible extent, simply in order to stand still. What are the Government’s underlying assumptions about business rate rises, discounts and redistribution? I note, for example, that North West Leicestershire district council, because of the business rates reset, expects to lose 67% of its spending power in one go as a result of the Budget. What are the underlying assumptions about the housing revenue account, parking revenue account and other ringfenced council budgets, so our constituents know what is coming, not just in their council tax bill but in what they may pay for parking, permits, waste services and other essential day-to-day services?

Let us consider the individual cases coming in. I made reference to the impact on Shropshire of the loss of £8.8 million in rural services delivery grant, and South Holland, West Lindsey and Staffordshire Moorlands will see a 40% cut in their funding needs assessment as a  result of the Budget. There are also authorities, such as Boston, that are seeing more than 40% of their budget driven to cover the costs of drainage boards. East Cambridgeshire district council sees a cut of £125,000 a year, and Fylde district council sees a rise of nil despite a headline announcement by the Government of 6.8%, once those calculations are taken into account. I know the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was here earlier on, and Harlow reports that as a consequence, the core funding—the revenue support grant—is cut by 25% this year alone. All that has a huge impact on local Government funding and what our constituents will see.

I know that there are many in this Chamber with experience in local government. Our councils remain the most efficient part of our public sector, but it is clear from the many constituency-level issues and the insights we have gained in this debate that they deserve better from this Government in a much more transparent and open funding settlement, so that we know the underlying assumptions of Government and our constituents can understand what will happen to their council tax bills and their household budgets. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Minister. \p Jim McMahon: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Select Committee, for opening the debate with her usual diligence and, rightfully, her challenge. I also pay tribute to all the other members of the Committee who were in the Chamber today for the work that they do throughout the year. It is often unseen, and maybe even unsung, but it is appreciated and it makes a huge difference to the functioning of a good Government.

The wide range of contributions today demonstrates the significant interest in the vital work that the Department does in driving positive change to the lives of many working people. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and my fellow Ministers, I also thank departmental officials for their tireless work and dedication over the last year. They are working solidly to ensure that we get these reforms through, that we sort out the funding foundation and that we deliver the ambitious plan that we set out for this Government.

Turning to this debate, the Chancellor took decisive steps to stabilise the country’s financing, to back growth and to rebuild every region across the country, repairing the damage felt by working people, communities and businesses after a decade and a half of stagnation. The Government must now use every tool at their disposal to ensure that we turn that tide. The new investment rule is a bold but important tool, a move that has freed up an extra £113 billion of investment over the next five years, including for schools, hospitals, roads, green energy and, of course, housing. This will deliver good jobs, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), because housing is at the very heart of this Government’s commitment.

I am delighted that we have increased the budget for the affordable homes programme by £400 million this year. Indeed, 2025-26 has the biggest annual budget for affordable housing in over a decade. This shows what  can be achieved, but our efforts will not stop there. The spending review announced a new 10-year affordable homes programme with £39 billion of new investment, alongside a 10-year rent settlement and £2.5 billion in low-interest loans for social housing providers. This will address many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). This is a generational intervention, but do not just take my word for it. The National Housing Federation was clear that this is

“a transformational package for social housing and will deliver the right conditions for a decade of renewal and growth.”

We have heard from many friends across the Chamber, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). He echoed the Deputy Prime Minister, who has long argued that social and affordable housing is a bedrock of opportunity. The homes that we build now will house families for many generations to come, giving them a safe, decent and affordable place to call home, keeping communities together and investing in the most fundamental right that the people of Britain rightly expect. That is why this is so central to the Government’s work and one of our defining missions.

Alongside building new homes that are safe and decent, this Government are taking real steps to ensure that all existing homes are safe, too. In response to the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, we made firm commitments to accelerate the pace of building remediation and we are backing our words with action. We have increased funding for building remediation by £553 million in 2025-26, and we are taking our annual funding to over £1 billion for the first time. We are also making over £1 billion available for new remediation funding. Over the coming years, social housing landlords will see the benefit and this will bring to an end the unfair two-tier system that has treated social housing tenants as second-class citizens for far too long, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

Supporting the most vulnerable in our society is at the heart of our Department’s work, so we are pleased that we are making record investments into our homelessness system this year, including a £233 million uplift that will take homelessness funding to over £1 billion in 2025-26. Alongside this, we have increased funding for the local authority housing fund by £100 million this year, allowing councils to invest in the long term by increasing their stock of temporary accommodation. This will allow us to begin to bring to an end the use of unsuitable and expensive bed and breakfasts to house families.

It is a matter of national shame that over 165,000 children live in temporary accommodation. Many of those kids are away from school and their friends and are often in accommodation that none of us would choose for our own families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) rightly said. I say to the House that if it is not good enough for our own children, it is not good enough for any child, and we will address this scandal head on.

I assure the House that the Government are under no illusions of the scale of the financial challenge that our councils face. I know the difference that councils can make, having had the honour of serving as a councillor over many years. That is why we are absolutely committed to working in partnership with the sector to rebuild local government from the ground up so that it is fit,  legal and decent, getting ahead of the crisis management and delivering better outcomes for the people we were all sent here to represent.

The recent spending review provides an extra £5 billion of new grant funding in the next three years, including £3.4 billion of new grant funding to be delivered through the local government finance settlement. We are going even further by fundamentally reforming the local government finance system. The current system is an outdated model that means some places face neighbourhood decline. It hits at the heart of what it means to live a decent life in a good place. To add to that, the escalating cost crisis in adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation makes matters even worse. It is not fair for outcomes or for councils either. Although the previous Government said they understood this, they failed to take the action needed to address it—we will not make the same mistake.

The fair funding review 2.0 consultation, launched last week, sets out the heart of the matter. We will take into account the real cost pressures being felt in key areas, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). We will also take into account remoteness, as rightly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), as well as deprivation, the ability to raise council tax locally, daytime visitor numbers, temporary accommodation cost pressures, and much more. Coming to the point rightly made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), the cost of labour in areas will also be taken into account. When Members see the fair funding review, I hope they will see that we have taken into account those cost pressures being felt in every local authority, and that we have done this with integrity, because it means a lot to ensure that we finally get a system right that for too long has, frankly, been broken.

All these measures are being supported by the first multi-year settlement in a decade. The importance of that was set out by many Members, but in particular by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), who spoke about the stability needed and ensuring that councils have that firm foundation. A fair funding formula needs to do just that, and this is a promise delivered.

This Government have made choices, and we are open about those choices because they have allowed us to make the record investments that I set out earlier. One of those choices was to reform the inefficient, ineffective and outdated local growth funding landscape. As such, we are continuing the UK shared prosperity fund at a reduced level of £900 million for one financial year for transition, before we move to a model of targeted long-term local growth funding, as confirmed at the spending review. Deprived communities and mayoral regions will see the benefit. The north and the midlands will also benefit—their potential has been untapped for too long. Overall investment in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be protected, and communities will have genuine control of where funding goes for their areas for the first time in a long time.

We are making significant investments in the things that matter to local people—in social and affordable housing, in building safety, in homelessness and in local government. For far too long, we have seen the erosion  of the things that make places safe, clean and decent and that give pride of place, because the previous Government did not take on the challenge in the way that was needed. We are not willing to do that. We are not willing to stand by idly while the system falls over, outcomes get worse and, in the end, costs escalate to the point of crisis. We are fixing the foundations, getting on with the job and finally giving our councils and communities the justice that they deserve. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister and the 15 Members from across the country who have taken part in the debate, which shows the value we place on our local authorities. For far too long, our local councils have not always got the recognition they deserve, but they are the first line of defence for all our constituents, and it is right that they are properly funded to carry out this vital work.

The Minister outlined some of the key areas where the Government are making big changes, and it is important that we continue to press him on those key areas and ask these difficult questions—not because we want to, but because we see this day in, day out in our inboxes, and it is vital that we address it. We do not want any more councils declaring bankruptcy, we do not want any more section 114 notices being issued, and we do not want any more young people tragically losing their life because of the temporary accommodation they are living in.

It is important that we help the Government in their ambition to build the homes we need. The £39 billion outlined is a step in the right direction. Our cross-party Select Committee will continue to ask the Government these questions, because we believe that every single person across the country deserves a safe, secure home that they can call their own.

Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Martin McCluskey.) \p Lisa Smart: Too many of my constituents feel they are being left to fend for themselves on unsafe roads. They are scared for their children, they are tired of reporting the same danger again and again, and they are angry that nothing changes until someone is seriously hurt, or worse. My message to the Government today is simple: people should not have to die or be seriously injured before something is done about dangerous speeding. Provisional estimates for 2024 suggest that 1,633 people were killed on Britain’s roads last year, while 56% of fatal road collisions in 2023 involved one or more speed-related factors.

I have three clear asks of the Minister today. First, the Government must move to taking a proactive approach to fixed speed camera placement, rather than waiting for a tragedy before allowing action. Secondly, I am asking that national guidance—specifically, Department for Transport circular 01/2007, “Use of speed and red-light cameras for traffic enforcement: Guidance on deployment, visibility and signing—be updated to reflect this proactive approach. Thirdly, I want the Government to make it easier for local communities, who know their roads better than anyone, to get the speed cameras they need without having to fight for years to be heard, if the data can back up the request. \p Tom Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on securing her first Adjournment debate. Many people in my constituency have written to me about this issue, particularly those in villages around the towns, such as Ferrensby. Does she agree that in rural areas like mine, there needs to be a proactive stance to ensure that where there are not footpaths and pavements, people are not at risk from speeding vehicles? \p Lisa Smart: I absolutely agree. My constituency is suburban, but a number of our areas are semi-rural and have roads without pavements. When pedestrians are walking along a road because there is no pavement, the danger level is increased. I agree that communities need to be able to take proactive action to make our roads safer.

We should start with the facts. Speed cameras work. They reduce speeding, reduce accidents and reduce deaths—they save lives. The RAC Foundation and the Department for Transport have both shown that speed cameras reduce speeding and cut the number of crashes. Areas with cameras see up to a 42% drop in fatal or serious collisions. These are our children making it home from school or our grandparents crossing the road safely. This debate is not about whether cameras work, because we know they do.

The threat of dangerous driving remains clear, and I want to take a moment to thank the Brake campaign for its work on these issues. It continues to be a powerful voice for road safety, fighting for changes that prevent heartbreak and loss in communities up and down the country. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is right to mention the organisation Brake and the good work it does; it does the same good work in my constituency, and we all benefit. In Northern Ireland, speed cameras are primarily installed in locations with a demonstrated history of injury, collisions and speeding problems, so they are mostly on motorways rather than in country areas where there are more accidents, with the result that they are not as effective as they could be. Does she agree that the oversaturation in some areas and underusage in others has led to the general public losing confidence in the use of speed cameras as a tool for road safety, and instead, many see it as a revenue-raising exercise? \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The safety of road users, be they vehicle users, cyclists, pedestrians or mobility scooter users, needs to be at the heart of decision making on speed cameras. I agree that safety rather than revenue needs to be at the centre of any decisions.

In my constituency of Hazel Grove, the danger is real and it is happening right now.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Martin McCluskey.) \p Lisa Smart: Gill has lived on Moor End Road in Mellor for 25 years. In that time, she has seen people’s pets killed, cars smashed to bits and a stone wall destroyed by reckless drivers, but what keeps her awake at night is fear for local children and elderly relatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) mentioned happens in his constituency, parts of Moor End Road do not have pavements, so people are forced to walk right alongside very fast-moving vehicles. For Gill, it feels like it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. We should not be waiting for that time to come. \p Alex Ballinger: Too often, the question of whether local authorities, combined authorities or police forces are responsible for funding speed cameras comes up. That has led to horrible delays in places like Thorns Road and Manor Way in my constituency, where, despite fatalities and decades of concern, we are still no closer to getting average speed cameras on those hot spots. Does the hon. Member agree that we need faster mechanisms to agree who pays for speed cameras, so that we can move quickly so that the people of Halesowen and Quarry Bank can feel safe? \p Lisa Smart: I agree with the hon. Member that the bureaucracy of who funds cameras should not be what holds up making our roads safer. We should have an agreed way of funding them and communities should be empowered, so that if they can raise the funds themselves, whether through a parish council precept or otherwise, they should not be blocked from doing so. Given the costs incurred through loss of life and injury, the expense of such interventions should be looked at as a whole; the installation of a speed camera can prevent such costs further down the line, so is a matter of making an investment in order to save.

Another of my constituents, Christopher, also from Mellor, knows that all too well. He was involved in a terrifying crash with a stolen car being driven at dangerous speeds, and he told me that he thought his life was over. Nobody should have to feel that fear just for being on the road.

In Offerton, my constituent Chris is one of many who have contacted me about speeding on Offerton Road and Torkington Road. He is worried about HGVs thundering down residential streets, ignoring the 15mph limits on the Torky bends. He said kids are scared to walk home, near misses are all too frequent and many incidents go unreported. In Little Moor, Marion lives on a dangerous bend, where cars have been written off, they have destroyed the lamp post next to her house and a motorbike has torn up her driveway.

I cannot talk about speeding without mentioning the wonderful children of Mellor primary school. After I visited the school, the entire year 6 class wrote to me about speeding on Longhurst Lane—I had encouraged them to write to their MP about things that they cared about, and they did. Children aged 10 and 11 asked me for updates on what was being done about Longhurst Lane, and many of them told me that speed cameras would be an obvious part of the solution. If schoolchildren can see the solution, I think we should listen. These are just a few of the voices in my inbox—there are many, many more. Our communities are sounding the alarm, but they feel ignored and are desperate for someone to take action.

Here is the root of the problem: under current Government guidance, local authorities should not install a fixed-speed camera until after there have been three or more fatal or serious injury collisions, as per circular 01/2007. So three serious injuries or deaths have to happen before speed cameras are encouraged—that is a disastrously reactive policy. It is a policy that says, “We’ll only fix the danger once enough people have died or have at least come close to it.” That is surely both morally wrong and practically absurd. Residents on Strines Road, for example, have repeatedly raised concerns about unsafe driving. They have logged the dangers and shown the evidence, but because the road has not yet claimed enough lives in a sufficiently limited time period, the current guidance is of little help.

I should note that circular 01/2007 allows for the installation of fixed-speed cameras even before the usual thresholds are met, recognising that such cameras can play a valuable role where there is clear community concern. However, as the answers to several of my written parliamentary questions have made clear, that provision is treated very much as a secondary consideration. The Greater Manchester combined authority, which covers my own patch, frequently points to the national guidance when pressed on the installation of new cameras in parts of my constituency where local communities have made their concerns more than clear. The guidance fails to actively encourage or even enable local and combined authorities to prioritise that proactive approach as a central pillar of their road safety strategy, where it rightly belongs.

Both in theory and in practice, the Government’s approach does not value prevention; it responds only to tragedy. We need a better approach based on risk, not on death tolls. Let us listen when residents report repeated speeding. Let us take community complaints seriously.  Let us use data such as average speed monitoring and near-miss records, not just crash statistics. My community welcomed the Government’s announcement that speeding would be addressed in the new road safety strategy. That is a good first step, but we need to see that strategy take a proactive stance. \p Tessa Munt: I thank my hon. Friend very much for bringing forward this debate. I point out in particular that one of my residents—a man called Chris, who is now a friend—lost his wife Lorraine. She was simply cycling back from her work at school and was hit by a driver. In order to ensure that nothing so dreadful happened again, Chris paid for speeding signs on his piece of road. It really should not be for individuals to feel so desperate that they end up funding that themselves. Certainly in my area, it is very difficult for communities to prove that they need to have some sort of speeding restrictions. Those signs are really effective, particularly since they move around in parishes, which I have and which I know my hon. Friend does not have. \p Lisa Smart: I am so sorry to hear that that happened to Lorraine and Chris. Of course Chris does not want that to happen to somebody else, and it is entirely understandable that he has taken action himself to remind drivers of the speed limit. My constituents on Strines Road have done something very similar—every single green bin has a speeding reminder on it. They have taken action into their own hands. \p Tessa Munt: We do not have bins in rural areas. There is nothing bar the speed cameras. \p Lisa Smart: The secondary point to the one that my hon. Friend raises is about local authorities being properly funded so that they can take the preventive action that works for them to make their communities safe. I am grateful for the points that she raises.

The guidance must be revised to give clear guidance to local and combined authorities, because until that changes, councils and local police forces will continue to feel that they cannot act. That is not good enough, and our constituents deserve more. My call to this Government is simple: update the national guidance to allow for the proactive, preventive placement of speed cameras based on risk, not on tragedy. Let us build a future where safety comes first, not after the fact. Let us give councils the tools they need to stop accidents before they happen.

We also need change at the local level, so I welcome the GMCA’s ongoing review of its speed camera guidance, which I pushed for for years as a councillor before being elected to this place. Frankly, that review is long overdue and has taken far too long. National reform will empower changes at the local level, and it is that change that I will keep fighting for and that I ask the Government for today.

Let me end where I began. Our constituents should not have to wait for tragedy before they get protection. They should not have to experience the death of an elderly neighbour, a child on their way home from school or another member of their local community to see the  change that they need. Speed cameras work: they lead to lower speeds, fewer accidents and fewer deaths on our roads. I once again urge the Government to take a proactive approach to speed camera installation, to update national guidance to that effect—particularly circular 01/2007—and to make it easier for local communities to get the safety measures that they need. \p Lilian Greenwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this debate—her first Adjournment debate—and thank her for raising the vital issue of speed cameras and the criteria for their installation. It is really good to have the opportunity to discuss an issue that she has raised with me a number of times in questions and correspondence over the past year.

I begin by making it clear that improving road safety is one of my Department’s highest priorities, and measures to address speeding will be considered for inclusion in the forthcoming road safety strategy. As the hon. Member has said, there were 1,624 fatalities in reported road collisions in Great Britain in 2023. Of those, 888 occurred in collisions in which, in the opinion of the attending police officer, speed was a factor for at least one vehicle. That represents 58% of all fatalities in collisions for which the police recorded at least one collision factor. The police often refer to the “fatal four”, and I am afraid that excessive speed remains the major contributor to road traffic collisions. \p Alex Ballinger: One issue that we have across Dudley is street racing. We often have groups of young men coming from Birmingham, racing up and down the A456 and through the back streets of Halesowen, terrifying some of my residents. Unfortunately, despite the excellent work of Operation Hercules and the police, we have not really been able to crack down on that. Does the Minister agree that street racing hotspots are areas where we should consider putting average speed cameras? \p Lilian Greenwood: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am sure that everyone in the House feels concern about the kind of antisocial driving occurring in his constituency. It is absolutely right that local partners—the local authority and the police—should look at how best to tackle that kind of behaviour, which is undoubtedly a blight on his local community and is obviously very concerning to hear about.

All available research shows a link between excessive speed and the risk of collisions, so I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for raising this issue, and indeed to other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Fatalities and injuries from road collisions are simply unacceptable, and this Government will work hard to prevent those tragedies for all road users.

The hon. Member talked about action to reduce speed, including lower speed limits, and action to enforce speed limits, such as speed cameras. My Department’s guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras for traffic enforcement is not mandatory—it is guidance—and authorities are invited to set their own deployment criteria if they wish. The guidance encourages authorities to develop their own deployment criteria, so that they can demonstrate a local systematic approach to site selection.

I recognise that at a time when local authorities face a great many calls on their resources, it is important that they focus those resources where they will have the most impact. Unfortunately, I imagine that will sometimes mean local authorities deciding that they need to focus on those places where there have been KSIs—where people have been killed or seriously injured. However, I encourage local authorities to consider both how they can deal with places where there have been KSIs and how they can take a more proactive approach. \p Tom Gordon: In North Yorkshire, we do not have any average or fixed speed cameras. We have a number of temporary mobile speed vans, but they do not act as a sufficient deterrent because they move around—that is obviously the purpose and nature of them. Instead, we have seen lots of community speed watch groups set up. Does the Minister agree with me on the importance of those community groups, who work so hard to highlight the dangers of speeding in rural communities like mine? \p Lilian Greenwood: I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of community speed watch groups. I will come on to that topic a little later.

The guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras should be used alongside setting local speed limits. These are tools to support our primary objective, which is reducing the number of collisions and casualties and, indeed, reducing their severity. I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that speed cameras work. In the right place, speed cameras can help manage safety risks by encouraging drivers to conform to the speed limit. However, they are not the only or always the best way to improve road safety. Speed limits should be evidence-led, and general compliance needs to be achievable without an excessive reliance on enforcement. Frankly, we cannot have a speed camera everywhere, and we cannot have a police officer everywhere.

As the hon. Member knows, the enforcement of road traffic law and the deployment of available police resources, including on mobile cameras, is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account specific local problems and the demands that they face. Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, local authorities have a statutory duty to take steps to reduce and prevent collisions, and they have the power to set speed limits on their roads. It is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be where tragic collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. Indeed, I would agree that a more proactive, preventive approach is entirely sensible. It is clearly incredibly valuable to identify places where there is a higher risk and evidence of near misses. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. She says that it seems entirely sensible to move to a proactive approach; does she have plans to update the guidance in a way that moves towards that approach, so as to be clear with local authorities? \p Lilian Greenwood: Certainly I welcome the opportunity for us to debate this issue today. I will reflect on the contributions that Members have made, and on the  suggestions that the hon. Member has put forward. Local authorities already have the power to take that approach, and I want to be clear about that. It is a myth to say that they cannot act until there have been a number of fatalities; they already can. Local authorities also have a range of traffic management measures available to help improve safety in their areas. In addition to the ability to set local speed limits, they can also introduce traffic calming measures, speed-activated warning signs and average speed cameras. \p Tessa Munt: Will the Minister consider the fact that if someone wants to install a 20 mph limit in our towns and cities—such as Wells or Cheddar, which are plagued by speed trouble—the police advice is that drivers have to already be close to 20 mph for them to accept the need for a 20 mph limit? That strikes me as utterly bonkers. It stifles any further discussion and the implementation of 20 mph limits, even near schools. \p Lilian Greenwood: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, and I will say a little more on that in a moment. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have the local knowledge of their roads. Any authority that has the support of the local community for installing such schemes has my Department’s full backing. I welcome the support expressed by Members today, and agree that sharing good practice can be helpful.

The Department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 mph speed limits, reminding them to reserve them for sensible and appropriate areas only, such as outside schools, and that safety and local support should be at the heart of the decision. That in itself impacts compliance, as drivers are more likely to observe the speed limit when they understand why it is there. I emphasise that we support 20 mph limits in the right places. As well as influencing safety, they can influence quality of life, the environment and the local economy, but 20 mph zones and limits are best considered on a road-by-road basis. That ensures local consent, unlike blanket measures.

We are therefore not in favour of 20 mph limits being set indiscriminately on all roads, without due regard for the safety case and for local support; but when there is clear evidence, and when people support them, I think it entirely right for local authorities to pursue them, if they wish to. They will want to make decisions about local implementation in consultation with local communities and, of course, with the local police; as I have said, they know their roads best, and I cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster.

While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the speed limits on roads under their care, provided that they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. I understand how frustrating it is for communities who feel that their concerns are not being listened to and acted on. However, the Members who have spoken today have made a powerful case for lower speed limits, and we know that even the most experienced and careful drivers can make mistakes, and that collisions at higher speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes. \p John Slinger: I fully appreciate how important it is for local communities to have the most influence over road safety measures in their area, but can my hon. Friend expand on the forthcoming road safety strategy? Can she tell us whether there will be an even clearer drive from central Government towards, perhaps, a “vision zero” approach, and towards giving local communities even more impetus to reduce speeding? It is, in my view, and probably that of many other Members, selfish and reckless of people to exceed a speed limit that they are required by law to abide by. \p Lilian Greenwood: I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion for improvements in road safety. The Department will consider what more we can do to support local authorities and hon. Members in this regard, and we stand ready to work with everyone who is trying to improve road safety locally. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the House knows, we are developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to saying more about that in the months ahead. As the Secretary of State has said, we are hoping and aiming to publish it by the end of the year.

The police-run Community Speedwatch schemes enable local volunteers to work with the police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their localities. I know how important they can be to  local communities, and I thank all those who are volunteering in this way. Drivers who are detected speeding are sent letters, and the police may take further action if a driver is detected multiple times. Decisions on when to adopt Community Speedwatch schemes are operational matters for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, in conjunction with local policing plans, but as I have said, the schemes can play a very important role.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the number of people killed and injured on our roads. The Department is developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to the opportunity to set out more details in due course. I welcome today’s debate and all the contributions from Members on road safety, both today and on other occasions. I am pleased that there is so much determination in the House to tackle the unacceptable loss of life and unacceptable injuries that result from road traffic collisions, and I look forward to working with Members further on the issue.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.