5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
If we now have a more sophisticated understanding of an individual’s need, and if the provision required to meet that need across society has reached a cost and breadth that is so significant, how do we provide for that given the finite budgets that exist?
I join the hon. and gallant Minister in paying tribute to our armed forces. After the Defence Secretary gave a press conference calling out this operation, Russia said that it posed no threat to undersea infrastructure. I asked this question when the Minister responded to an urgent question back in November after lasers were fired at RAF pilots by Russia: why has the Russian ambassador not been summoned by the Foreign Office, given this clear threat to our national security?
The price of energy is obviously important, but as important is the security of supply. Whether the Government like it or not, over 70% of our energy comes from oil and gas. The events of the past month must be a wake-up call to them: we must secure our supply. Luckily, we have a secure supply under the North sea, but—although his Ministers might say otherwise—the policies of the Prime Minister’s Government mean that we cannot produce it. When will he get serious about our energy security, end the ban on new licences, end the energy profits levy, permit Rosebank and Jackdaw, and finally get the UK drilling again?
6. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent family voting in UK elections.
While Greater Manchester police has stated that there was no evidence of family voting in a recent by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported witnessing “concerningly high levels” of such activity on polling day. How does the Minister reconcile these conflicting accounts, and can she clarify how Greater Manchester police conducted that assessment, and particularly whether witness statements from the observers were taken into account?
I beg to move, That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Every debate on special educational needs and disabilities is dominated by statistics: funding, school places and workforce numbers. Those are important, but at the heart of this issue are children, families and carers who rely on the system. I thank the hundreds of families, from my constituency and across the country, who have contacted me since the debate was scheduled. I applied for the debate before the White Paper came out, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I focus pretty much all my comments on the White Paper. I am sure that other Members will speak about the issue more widely. In my opinion, any credible reform of SEND, including the Government’s White Paper, must meet three tests. It must strengthen legal protections, improve delivery on the ground and address the underlying pressures in the system. If it does all three, it can and will save money in the long run, but I am afraid that the Government’s proposals fall short on all three. Before turning to the substance of the proposals, I will address the process by which they have been brought forward. The consultation itself has raised serious concerns. Parents and representative organisations have expressed overwhelming opposition to key elements of the reforms, particularly the potential weakening of legal protections. National charities have warned that the proposals risk eroding rights, while others have asked whether the most consequential changes have been fully and transparently put to consultation at all. At the same time, many parents and forums report feeling that engagement has been superficial—that workshops and consultation exercises have not meaningfully reflected their views. That matters because reform of this scale depends on trust.
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we are to solve—if that is the right word—the issue of special educational needs, and, more importantly, put in place the systems to support children with such needs, we need to understand the reasons for those needs. Instead, there is a feeling that families who are already exhausted by the system are becoming disengaged from the very process that the Government’s proposals are supposed to improve. Across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, SEND is the most prominent issue in my casework. Parents, schools and carers feel consistently let down by a system that is too slow, too complex and too often unresponsive. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I see those challenges not just locally but reflected across the country.
I do not attribute any unfair or untoward motive to the Government; I think they are trying to improve the system. However, as I said in my opening remarks, my view is that if we improve it properly and get it right, that will save money. The danger with the way the Government have approached this is that they are looking to save money and then thinking about how they can solve the system. That is the danger. Let me move on to the three tests that I mentioned at the start. The first test is whether the Government’s proposals strengthen legal protections. I accept that education, health and care plans, introduced in 2014, are not perfect, but they provide something essential: clarity, structure and, crucially, legal enforceability. The central question is whether individual support plans will carry those same enforceable rights. At present, the Government have not provided that assurance, and I look to the Minister to do so. In fact, external assessments suggest that these changes will significantly weaken legal protections. That creates a clear risk: replacing a system that is legally enforceable, albeit slow, with one that may be simpler in theory but weaker in law. And we know that enforceability matters.
In a minute. Across the country, over nine in 10 tribunal appeals are upheld against the local authority. And while, to be frank, that covers no local authority in any glory, it is evidence that the legal framework works when families are able to challenge decisions. If we remove that safeguard, families will lose their ultimate protection.
Given the time available, I will probably not take too many more interventions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is a strange argument that, because a child has been legally given an EHCP that requires a certain level of support but, for whatever reason—whether through the school, perhaps, or the local authority—that cannot be provided, we should therefore water down their legal rights. When the current system works—and it does work in places—it is transformational. One parent in my constituency wrote: “We are incredibly relieved. I have received the final copy of the EHCP, and the school is now implementing it. It has been a long road.”
No, I will not. That parent’s relief exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty with ambiguity is not reform; it is regression. The second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—waiting times stand at about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment, far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks. Without clinical capacity, the central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended. Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across my constituency, including at South Farnham school, Highfield South Farnham, St Polycarp’s, St Mary’s, and Badshot Lea infants, a consistent picture emerges: rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly: “CAMHS sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity.” That is not joined-up delivery; it is displacement of responsibility. The consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12-year-old whose needs were identified in year 2 is still awaiting an assessment. Without diagnosis, her school has been unable to put the right support in place. Her mother wrote: “We are at our wits’ end. The delays are not just administrative—they are shaping the course of our daughter’s life.” That is not an isolated example. I have also worked with a family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refusing an EHCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process, only for the decision to be overturned. There are further consequences of these proposals that need to be addressed. By moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable EHCP framework towards individual support plans, much of the responsibility for decision making—and, inevitably, dispute resolution—risks being pushed on to schools. That would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position: they would be expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs. At a time when schools are under significant pressure, this risks shifting both the legal and emotional burden on to institutions that are simply not equipped to carry it.
I do not think those two points are contradictory. One is an issue of the legislation, which is what I am talking about and what the Government are potentially looking to change, and another is how the system itself is being implemented by local authorities and others. I have been very clear in my speech that although I absolutely believe—as I think the hon. Gentleman does—that the legal requirements should remain, I am in no way sugar-coating the difficulties that local authorities are having in meeting those legal requirements. The third test is whether the reforms address the underlying pressures in the system. Demand is rising rapidly: over 1.7 million children in England are now identified as having special educational needs, with numbers increasing year on year. Yet the Government’s proposals place additional expectations on schools and local authorities without resolving the fundamental constraints: namely, workforce funding, certainty and system capacity. The White Paper promises more educational psychologists, therapists and specialists, but training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years. So the question is simple: how are those gaps going to be filled in the meantime? At the same time, the Department’s own figures show that there are now 400 fewer teachers than when we left office. So schools are being asked to do more with less. Local authorities are at the sharp end of the system and are being placed in an increasingly impossible position. Colleagues will know that in Surrey around £100 million has been invested locally to expand SEND provision alongside further investment in staffing, yet demand continues to outstrip capacity. In Hampshire, SEND overspend now stands at around £140 million, placing extraordinary pressure on finances. This is not unique to my areas in Surrey or Hampshire; across the country, councils are being asked to meet rising demand, fulfil statutory obligations and absorb increasing costs without that long-term funding certainty. The result is a system where families face delays, councils face financial instability and schools face mounting pressure. Taken together, this is not simply a failure of local authorities; it is a failure of the system to meet demand. And into that system the Government propose a decade-long transition. Councils are already preparing for a surge in EHCP applications as families seek to secure existing protections before reforms take effect, and that is certainly not going to ease pressure—it is, in fact, going to intensify it. Through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I consistently see that SEND cannot be addressed in isolation. The number of children with SEND is rising by about 5% each year, and meeting that need requires genuine co-ordination between education and health. Yet SEND was almost entirely absent from the NHS 10-year plan, and when I submitted written questions on conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, the responses revealed that data is not collected individually but is grouped into very broad categories, which is not joined-up government but fragmentation. That needs to change. I want to touch briefly on the independent sector capacity, because independent schools also play an important role in relieving pressure on the system, particularly for children with complex needs. They act as a pressure valve. I am aware that some characterise all independent provision as little more than private equity extracting profit, but the independent sector in my constituency provides excellent and comprehensive coverage and capacity. I am fortunate to have excellent specialist provision in my constituency, including at schools such as Hollywater, Undershaw, More House, Pathways, the Abbey school and the Ridgeway school, which support children with complex needs every day and should be supported. In conclusion, families do not need another wholesale structural overhaul or a decade of transition. Instead, they need a system that delivers on time, with clarity and with enforceable rights. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she set out the full cost of replacing EHCPs with individual support plans, including the transition and implementation? Secondly, will she guarantee that ISPs will carry the same legally enforceable rights, including access to a tribunal? Thirdly, when will additional SEND staff be trained and in post? Fourthly, what action will be taken against local authorities that consistently fail to meet statutory timelines? Finally, will the Government publish detailed data on specific conditions and system performance so that outcomes can be properly measured? I say to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that this is not about defending a White Paper; it is about defending the families we represent. Families are not asking for perfection; they are simply asking for a system that works. The question for the Government is simple: will they strengthen what exists or will they replace it with something weaker, slower and less certain? On the current trajectory, that is the risk, and it is one that I believe this House should not accept.
I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying, and I think the idea that anyone on this side is wholly endorsing the current system is a false one. My fear, however—which I think my hon. Friend is expressing—is that, under the current proposals in the White Paper, if he unfortunately has to proceed through the tribunal system, the tribunal will be no longer be able to allocate a specific provision for parents and child, which essentially renders the whole thing null and void. Does he agree that we should be asking the Government not to rip up their proposals, but to listen to the concerns that parents are expressing about their changes and tweak them, so that they can be responsive to the problems that he is raising?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that the speeches we have heard today have been wide-ranging and passionate. I thank all those who have spoken, all those who unfortunately did not manage to speak and the many Members who supported this debate. I am leading it, but plenty of Members across the House supported it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The one thing that united every speaker in this debate was a clear desire to improve a system that is not working for young people in our constituencies. We may disagree about the exact process to get there, but I say to the Minister that nobody in this House is expressing anything other than what they have heard from their own constituents. In some cases, that may be support for the Government’s proposals, but we have to be honest that many of our constituents are expressing concerns. The Minister should not squander this Government’s opportunity. I know there are antibodies from Government Members whenever I open my mouth about anything, but I am passionate about this issue, and I think that we—together, on both sides of the House—can improve what the Government are doing and ensure that the legal protections remain, while improving the system. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in writing a number of the questions asked by Members across the House that she was unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. I also hope that she will assess the responses to the White Paper with an open mind, with the aim of ensuring that every child has a legal right to the education that he or she deserves. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.
For years, and well before this conflict took place, Members across the House have called on the Government of the day to proscribe the IRGC. Regardless of whether it has been the Prime Minister or other Ministers answering, there has always been a pivot to economic sanctions against the IRGC. We know that the Iranian regime has found ways, through cryptocurrency and fake corporate structures, to evade those sanctions. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the effectiveness of UK sanctions against Tehran? On the presumption that those sanctions are failing, what precise action will he take to strengthen them?
I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents raising concerns about delays to EHCPs, a lack of specialist placements and the struggle to secure the support that their children need. Like so many other Members of the House, SEND issues dominate my surgeries and casework, and it is heartbreaking to see the delays and the pain and anguish brought to those children and families as they wait for what they deserve: an education that works for them and their specific needs. What troubles me even more is not those cases that have been brought to me, but how many more there must be who have not come forward. One of the most troubling aspects of this SEND crisis is that too many children simply do not have a suitable place at all. Children are left in settings that cannot meet their needs or, in some cases, are left out of education altogether. But this issue does not begin with placements; it begins much earlier in the system. Buckinghamshire council has advised that there is a shortage of occupational therapists to carry out assessments and there are delays of up to 56 weeks just to issue an EHCP. That is over a year in which a child may be stuck in the wrong setting, a year of lost progress and a year of growing pressure on families.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the whole system that suffers in the circumstance that he describes, such as the teaching staff who do their absolute best and every other child in those classes. He makes a very fair point. Before we even get to the question of school places, the system is already falling behind. In Buckinghamshire, nearby SEND schools are already oversubscribed, and despite the best efforts of heroic teaching staff, mainstream schools cannot always meet complex needs. This is where we in Buckinghamshire have been most let down by this Government. Back in May 2024, the Department for Education wrote to Buckinghamshire council and committed to a brand-new, 152-place SEND school for Buckinghamshire. That was not a political pledge or a general election campaign promise; it was officially announced by the Department for Education. This Labour Government have formally scrapped it. What was a £20 million spend has been downgraded to £8 million over three years for Buckinghamshire. That is not good enough. That school would not have solved all our problems, but it would have gone a very long way. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again and deliver this school for my constituents. Children and families in Buckinghamshire would benefit so much from it. Let me turn to the Government’s proposed SEND reforms. Many parents have contacted me on this issue, and I am concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has outlined, that the Government are not even close to getting this right. One constituent wrote to me: “I am concerned that the direction of SEND reform risks children and young people having to fit into whatever provision is available, or else missing out on education entirely. I’m really worried that these new proposals will leave parents having to battle directly with schools to get help for their child.” That is an important point. We need a system that works for the needs of each and every child, not a system that works for a faceless bureaucracy. My constituent continued: “My two children both have an autism diagnosis, but are significantly different in their support needs. A one-size fits all type provision will not be suitable for even these two siblings. I would love them to be able to manage at a mainstream school, but the solution is not for schools to become more SEN friendly, the solution is a complete overhaul and reform of the schooling system. It is antiquated and not fit for purpose.” I was lucky enough to go to an event in Portcullis House with parents and teachers of SEND families this afternoon, chaired by Rory Bremner. The evidence given by those parents and teachers was quite frightening; many fear that under this White Paper, if it is brought in, their children will be excluded altogether. I urge the Minister to get a read-out from that meeting. That leads on to wider concerns about the loss of individualised and legally enforceable support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon put it in his own excellent speech. That is about not just the risk of children being forced into inappropriate provision, but the potential loss of legal protections and tribunal rights and the potential loss of “education other than at school” packages for children who cannot attend any school setting. That cannot be right.
My right hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. It is the interests of those families that motivated me to speak in this debate, and I entirely endorse the point that he makes. In the last few moments that I have, I will briefly raise another specific case that I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s reflections on in her summing-up speech. The case was brought to me by a constituent who adopted two children in 2020. Both children experienced significant early trauma and later received diagnoses indicating multiple and complex needs, not least foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can involve more than 400 co-occurring difficulties affecting physical health, cognition, executive functioning and behaviour. Delays in intervention have had real and significant consequences. As adoptive parents, my constituents are aware of research estimating that adoption generates significant long-term social and economic value—I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. Yet, paradoxically, by adopting their children, they appear to have lost priority access to some state-funded support that would have been available had those children remained in foster care. That unintended consequence is deeply concerning. More broadly, adopted children with SEND often fall between services. Responsibility is frequently passed from one agency to another without the care and attention that the children need, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that. Too many families are being let down. “One size fits all” does not work and never will. Let us focus on the child and the needs of each child, and build a system that genuinely works.
In rural and coastal communities, hospitality is already under massive pressure thanks to the tax rises, regulatory impacts and other negative impositions of this Government. May I urge Ministers to ensure that if we are to bring in a registration scheme, we gather the data and do not move in too heavy-handedly, because we risk further damage to a hospitality sector that does not need it? We need to establish the data and find out whether further action is required.
Going further and faster on renewables is entirely compatible with new licences in the North sea. My constituents can see that the Prime Minister has very little power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but total power to order new licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank in the North sea. How can he stand there and say that energy independence is the goal while he tries desperately to get oil and gas from elsewhere, which he can do little about, and refuses to overrule his insane Secretary of State for Energy and ensure that we produce—[Interruption.] I withdraw that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can the Prime Minister do so while refusing to overrule the crazy policies of the Secretary of State for Energy, who insists on not producing oil and gas here? It makes no sense. Prime Minister, get a learning, get a teaching—but make sure it is not with the Energy Secretary.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and appreciate the remarks Committee members have made already. Ensuring the safety of people’s homes is, of course, a vital part of the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the aftermath of the tragic loss of 72 lives in the disaster that was the Grenfell Tower fire, the previous Government began that process through key pieces of legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022. In many ways, the Opposition are pleased to see that work continue under this Government and the stewardship of the Minister. Unfortunately, apparently not all parties see eye to eye on the matter. Changes to the planning system, including reforms to well intentioned safeguards such as the Building Safety Regulator, may be necessary. That is far from what Reform UK’s most senior designated spokesperson on housing said just before the recess. His comments cannot merely be described as misguided; they were insensitive to the point of being cruel and dismissive. That lamentable episode once again highlighted Reform’s inability to grasp the technicalities of many policy issues, and, critically, the inability of this one-man-band to muzzle its improperly vetted spokespeople and their shocking views. Let me move on to the detail of the statutory instrument. The previous Government launched the responsible actors scheme in July 2023. The aim was clear and responsible: to use sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to recognise action taken by responsible developers to locate, assess, remediate or pay to remediate life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings with a height of 11 metres or more that they had developed or refurbished over the 30 years leading to April 2022, as the Minister said. The other side of establishing the scheme was to create a responsible actors scheme prohibitions list, and I note the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire. The explanatory memorandum says that the Department “will continue to monitor and publish data” on that, but it appears that there is no data, so I would welcome it if the Minister copied me into her response to my right hon. Friend. The responsible actors scheme prohibitions list contains any eligible developer that is invited the scheme but declines to join, or that has its membership revoked for non-compliance with its conditions. As we have heard, the changes the Government seek to make through these specific regulations are purely technical, and we will not divide the Committee on them. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the wider issue of building safety. As Committee members will know, the Building Safety Act’s leasehold protections and developer remediation contract do not apply to, and remediation orders and remediation contribution orders cannot be used for, buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, leaseholders could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with remediating fire safety defects, such as cladding. The Government have said that “the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.] In July 2025, they also said that they had investigated all buildings under 11 metres that had been brought to their attention since 2022, and explained that the vast majority had not required cladding remediation works and that lower-cost mitigation measures had often addressed the fire risks. However, that came alongside a promise to “provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.” That pledge was made in July 2025. Will the Minister update us on when further details on funding will be confirmed? It is vital that work continues to make homes safer, including accelerating efforts to remove all dangerous cladding. I welcome the update the Secretary of State gave three weeks ago, announcing that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. However, that still leaves too many buildings coated in unsafe material; whether 100% or 9% are left, any home coated in dangerous cladding is a home too many. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.
Is the Minister confident that the Government’s invention of the term “grey belt” is providing protection to the green belt?
The Government have previously claimed that so-called grey-belt land is comprised of old petrol stations and disused car parks, but by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes on so-called grey-belt land that had been approved by Government planning inspectors, 88% were due to be built on what had previously been undeveloped countryside. The evidence is unequivocal: the green belt is under attack from this Government. Why will the Minister not just admit that the term “grey belt” is in fact a dishonest concoction designed to mislead the general public?
When I spoke in the Select Committee debate on this matter in the Chamber, I highlighted that too many parents feel that the system is done to them, rather than working with them. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and the concern of parents in my constituency that in order for trust to be rebuilt, there has to be some sort of individually, legally enforceable backstop for those families?
The Prime Minister is absolutely correct to praise the service of our armed forces personnel, and I join him in doing so, but they are being let down by the failure to deliver the defence investment plan. That failure can only be the result of either inertia or incompetence within the Government. Which one is it?
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I was in the same meeting, and one of the big concerns was the loss of the special school planned for Tamworth Lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that that not only detracts from parents and pupils who would benefit, but puts additional pressures on mainstream schools?
I would like to ask the Prime Minister about food security. In response to an earlier question, he suggested that the answer to food security was to go further and faster on renewable energy. Does he recognise that carpeting some of the country’s best farmland—indeed, some of the world’s best farmland—in Lincolnshire in solar panels is counterproductive to that aim?
As a consultant paediatrician, I have to undertake Prevent training at regular intervals. On each one of those occasions, I have raised with Ministers my concerns about either the quality or emphasis of that training, or both. Can the Home Secretary say whether she feels that in this particular situation, the problem was mostly that the perpetrator did not conform to the usual patterns that people were being trained to spot; that people were being badly trained; that people were not using their training diligently; or that the actions once the case had been reported were not followed through? Which does she think was the major factor?
I very much welcome the statement and commend the Minister for the way that he has framed it. He has been absolutely spectacular, if I may say so, over the months in trying to defend the indefensible, as indeed he has been today with this U-turn on steroids. May I press him on the matter of money? He has been Delphic in his response to two of my hon. Friends on the demands that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will be making of this Government, given this utter mess and the fact that spending plans were already being made on the back of the largesse that the Minister had been talking about. Will he confirm that not a penny piece will be passed to Mauritius in either payments or in compensation, now that the treaty has gone the way of the apocryphal Norwegian Blue, and tell us what legal notes have been passed between the two Governments, given that plainly this thing is now not going to be happening, in relation to moneys in compensation that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will now be demanding of the UK?
Over decades, the backbone of our ability to detect Russian submarines has been provided by our towed array patrol ships, from Leander right the way through to our increasingly decrepit Type 23. Does the Minister agree that the logic of what he has said, given that the threat has increased significantly over the past several months and over the past couple of years, is that we should be looking again at the orders for eight Type 26s with 2087 towed array on the back of them, and upgrade that to deal with the threat that we now face? Where we are now is not where we were a few short years ago, when that order book for eight Type 26s was constructed.
Maximising rises in council tax underpins this Government’s entire approach to council finance. The Minister has admitted that no assessment has been done of the impact that this has on the cost of living for British households. As the Government send in the bailiffs to support their council tax maximisation strategy, will she assure the House that the Prime Minister has considered the impact of these huge council tax rises on working households?
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. With all eyes on the middle east, let us not forget that Russia remains the most acute, persistent and active threat to the United Kingdom. Putin’s goal of conquering Ukraine is unchanged, and that continues to place our entire European continent in jeopardy. His ongoing nefarious activity, most notably in our own territorial waters, should be a stark wake-up call. We must start acting on the threats that are visible and right in front of us. We may be critical of the Government’s tortoise-like approach to giving defence what it needs—slow and steady does not win this race, and it certainly does not keep us safe—but what does unite us is the full-throated support for the men and women of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, who keep the wolf at bay in these dangerous times. I pay particular tribute to all those who are serving in the middle east at the moment, those who served in recent Atlantic operations, and especially those who crew our continuous at-sea deterrent patrols, 24/7, 365 days a year, every year. When the Secretary of State came to this House last year to highlight the actions of the Russian spy vessel Yantar, he told Putin: “we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1016.] That was the right message, but at some point simply saying “We see you” is not enough. Words must be backed by action. This is not just a question of traditional defence. There is a growing and under-appreciated threat to our national resilience and our way of life. Just 65 undersea cables carry 99% of global communication, and a far smaller number of pipelines and interconnectors link our gas and electricity supplies to others. Can the Minister guarantee that there are no hostile devices, kinetic or otherwise, on, near or underneath any of those cables, pipelines or interconnectors? The reality is that he cannot. The Secretary of State said with confidence that there was no sabotage on this occasion, but what of the many other incidents in UK waters—in the Baltic, in the cables running to North America, west of the British Isles, where monitoring capacity is limited at best? The truth is that we do not fully know how secure our critical underwater infrastructure is. That is why we are dismayed that the much-touted defence readiness Bill has been delayed by a full year. Worse still, at a time that demands cross-party unity, it was deeply disappointing to hear the Prime Minister flatly reject the Leader of the Opposition’s offer of greater engagement earlier today. That was the wrong call. On Russia’s shadow fleet, when the Prime Minister announced on 25 March that British forces would be permitted to board sanctioned vessels transiting UK waters, we rightly supported that decision. The Chief of the Defence Staff, when asked at the recent London Defence Conference, said plainly, “We are ready”. Yet no action has been taken. We set a red line, and we have watched Russia repeatedly cross it. Worse, Russian military vessels are now accompanying shadow fleet ships, deliberately escalating the situation. This is deterrence in reverse. The Minister and I know better than anyone else in this Chamber the very real challenges of boarding vessels at sea, and the serious legal questions surrounding what happens to a ship and its crew once the decision to seize them is made. These are the same challenges that I faced while serving in the Royal Marines and boarding pirate vessels off the coast of Somalia. Back then, those legal and logistical hurdles were just as real, but it was clear that the global economy was being directly impacted by piracy and that we had to act, so we found a lawful way to do so. Why can we not do that now, when the situation is far more grave? It has been reported that the Attorney General has denied the legal basis for interdiction. If that is the case, let me ask the Minister this directly: what is the Government’s current position? Can he tell the House how many sanctioned vessels have transited UK waters unchecked? Russia is brazenly moving military supplies through our waters. That must be met with robust action, not statements. Today’s statement is a start, but only a start. It is clear that the Government are not moving fast enough to deter our adversaries. Deterrence requires capability, and capability requires funding. I know that the Minister has not had sight of the defence investment plan, but can he at least tell the country when it will be published? Seven months delayed, it is simply becoming a farce. Does he agree with the Conservatives and the Defence Committee that the Government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence within this Parliament, not the next? The Conservatives have already identified savings that would deliver over £20 billion in additional defence spending. We want to go further, and we renew our offer to work across the aisle to find savings. The choice is simple: if we are serious about deterring Russia and other hostile states from the High North or our overseas bases, we must reach 3% on defence now, not later, and give our armed forces the resources they need to keep us safe.
When the Prime Minister was in the middle east, did the subject of the UK’s dependence on helium come up? It is an element that we do not produce in the UK, and it is vital for things such as MRI scans in the NHS.
I thank the Minister for confirming that this Parliament has not ratified the treaty. As Parliament and the British public heard more about the deal, one of the things they found most inexplicable was that it involved us paying a substantial amount of money—how much has not yet been confirmed to Parliament—to the Mauritian Government. Will the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box today that, because Parliament has not ratified the deal, he will not be paying any money to the Mauritian Government?
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack—Bebe King, aged just six; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine—and the eight more children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside emergency services, who responded to this event. As the Home Secretary rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies. Sir Adrian said that a “merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and ‘hand-offs’” meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed the danger Rudakubana posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found that Rudakubana’s parents created “significant obstructions to constructive engagement.” Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on the Conservative Benches will support necessary actions. During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Rudakubana’s former headteacher Joanne Hodson. She told the inquiry that she was pressured by mental health services to water down the education, health and care plan to minimise the danger posed by Rudakubana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry: “my efforts to include this information in the EHCP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss Steed”, who was from child and adolescent mental health services, “even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping AR as ‘a black boy with a knife’. Nothing could be further from the truth”, but “in the end…the wording of the EHCP was re-written in many places”. This contributed to the clear risks being missed. The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue: mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Calocane because they were concerned about an “over-representation of young black men in detention”. Even the Government’s notes on the Mental Health Bill accompanying the King’s Speech refer to that issue. The fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration: when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary made clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and set out how the Government will change their approach in the future. Today’s report also makes it clear that Rudakubana’s autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with, yet the Government’s King’s Speech notes on the Mental Health Bill again expressly said that people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today’s report, will the Government reconsider that? I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is of course important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.” He went on: “Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”, and indeed in October, two or three months after the attack but well before the trial, information concerning the al-Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. The failure to provide information created an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024, and that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots. Will the Home Secretary therefore commit to making sure that in future such information is routinely released in cases of public interest? As the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a “line in the sand.” We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.
The Minister may be aware that the RAF’s investment in the P-8 submarine hunting programme was made in 2015, at a time when Russian activity in the north Atlantic was much less of a threat to the UK. I welcome the £100 million announced just now, but that is less than one third of the cost of one of those aircraft, so can I ask him what assessment he has made of the P-8 submarine hunting capability in the light of the increased Russian activity? Will he assure the House that he will go further if the RAF needs him to?
The Minister is probably sick of hearing me bang on about the local picture up in the East Riding of Yorkshire and the fact that ours is the lowest-funded local authority for SEND. We have roughly £1,000 per pupil per year, while Camden is at the other end of the league table: the funding in the Prime Minister’s constituency amounts to £3,800 per pupil. That discrepancy, that inequality, is simply insane. It is an historic problem caused by a funding formula that does not work for larger rural authorities, and it is an issue on which Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for many years. This is one of those “almost too difficult to do” problems that Ministers, both on our side and on the Labour side, have perhaps shied away from. I ask the Minister tonight to grasp this unique opportunity, given that the Government are now consulting. I am pleased that I shall be meeting her next week, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and I hope that we can find a way forward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for giving us a chance to debate these issues again today. In the limited time available to me, I will draw attention to a few of the specific problems that the system is throwing up. One problem involves EHCP drafting—if, of course, it is possible to obtain an EHCP in a timely manner in the first place. We often see only a vague recognition of need, which means that delivery on that need and the action plan is unenforceable from a legal perspective. The routine breaches of timelines are outrageous: people are waiting four years for an autism diagnosis. As a parent of a child with SEND, I was extremely lucky, in that my son’s nursery recognised his developmental issues when he was two and was very supportive during the process on which we then embarked, but I then became aware of how adversarial that process can become when one begins to engage in the issue of local authority provision. I found out at 3.30 pm on a Friday, via an email, that my son would not be able to take up the school placement that was, perhaps, most suitable for him at that point. The email did say that I could appeal against the decision, but it gave no reasons for why it had been made, and of course at 3.30 pm on a Friday everyone had finished work for the weekend, so replying was not an option. We can address, and should be addressing, such simple problems in the system to ensure that the journey for parents is easier and less challenging, because the more we can get the children into the right settings, the better it will be for them. Fewer will lose time in education and it will be possible to avoid the long-term problems that lead to further issues in adulthood, so that we do not find a child heading into a journey of never-ending care.
One of the problems for the children involved is that their journey is uncertain, and the system becomes inflexible. The reviews are not carried out in a timely fashion, which means that a child gets stuck in a placement that may not be right, which exacerbates the problem for the future. We end up with much bigger, more costly issues—not just costly in terms of local authority or central Government spending, but costly for parents and children. As a parent, I think that one of the biggest challenges is not knowing where that journey is going to end—not knowing what my son’s outlook is likely to be in two years, five years or 10 years. If we felt confident that the system would be there to provide support and the necessary safeguard in respect of that schooling provision—perhaps provision into adulthood, if required—perhaps we could start to break down some of the barriers. I appreciate that much of this comes with costs, and that local authorities need more provision in certain areas. I plead with the Government once again to ensure that the inequality in the funding gap is addressed, but I hope we now have an opportunity to find a better way forward for SEND provision.
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she plan to provide any additional resource or funding to the Prevent programme? If so, does she have any initial idea as to where that may be targeted?
7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of planned reforms to leasehold on integrated retirement communities.