5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I am grateful to the Minister for that. The only point I would make is that when, at the age of 47, one is described as an elder statesman, one can see retirement looming. I want to reassure him that I have no intention of retiring or stepping back from my duties in this House.
Might we have a debate in Government time on mid-contract mobile phone bill increases, which is a concern I have been raising for a long time? I was pleased to welcome Ofcom’s changes at the start of the year, but it seems that companies such as O2 are finding new ways around them and increasing bills by 40%. That is shocking when done mid-contract, as customers are not aware of the increases. People can cancel their contracts but are not aware of the problem. A debate would allow us to make the public aware that this is going on and look for solutions.
I yet again thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He should be proud of Mona Shannon, and she will be proud of him not just for raising this topic today, but for all the work he does across this House talking about health, because he is assiduous and dedicated to timely health interventions, and that should be applauded across the House and this nation. I am indebted to him for securing this debate. In the hon. Member’s speech, he mentioned who he had spoken to. I, too, have met the organisations Sue Ryder and Marie Curie, including at party conference, and I have met many other organisations, including LOROS and Rainbows, that cover my area. When I saw the title “Ageing Community” for this debate, I must admit that I thought the hon. Member should have applied for a five-day debate, considering what we could cover. I also notice the expertise in this debate. We have a secondary care surgeon, someone with public health experience at the back and me as a GP. It is turning into a multidisciplinary team, and there is a lot to unpack, whether it is prevention, mitigation, healthy lifestyles or looking at the best examples across the world. I recently travelled to Japan and Korea and saw how they look after their elderly and their approach to the lifestyle of the elderly. There is a lot to be learned out there, as across the world we all grapple with an ageing population. There are other topics that we could talk about, and some were touched on. On social care, it is a shame that there has been a change from cross-party talks to an independent commission. I note that Baroness Casey is being taken back to the Home Office, which means she is spread thinly. There is a wider debate to be had on social care, which is: what do the British public actually want? Often we look at the Scandinavian model, but say that we do not want to pay the taxes for it. We want the household or family approach, like the Bangladeshi or Pakistani model, but we certainly do not actually want grandma or grandpa coming to stay with us and we want to stay working. Therein lies the problem in British culture. We are not 100% sure what we want when we cross over from the NHS into social care, and we are not sure how to provide it. Some hard evidence of policies on an ageing community has been talked about, and unfortunately I have to raise the issue of winter fuel. In the Government’s analysis when they took away winter fuel payments—despite all the warnings—they knew that it would put 50,000 people into absolute poverty and 100,000 people into relative poverty. We can contrast that with the Opposition and our recent announcement on stamp duty. Jackson-Stops estimates that in the first year alone, up to 500,000 people above the age of 55 would consider downsizing because of that policy. I do not call that downsizing, as we heard in the debate on stamp duty—it is right-sizing, because it gives a real chance not only for more families to go upwards, but for people to move into more appropriate accommodation as they age. There is a lot to be said in the debate about an ageing population, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) pointed out, but I will focus my comments on the three questions that I think I caught from the hon. Member for Strangford: the assessment of the need for a national strategy for palliative care; what the Government are doing to ensure that palliative care is included in neighbourhood health centres; and the progress being made on 24-hour support. I will start with the national strategy and funding, and let us give credit to the Government where it is due. When it comes to children’s hospice funding, they have continued the payment and extended it, which is welcome, although it does not offer enough mitigation for national insurance contributions. The Government will say that when it comes to adult funding, they have given £100 million. That is capital funding, though, and as one hospice worker put it to me, there is no point in having new curtains and a lick of paint if there are no staff. As the Liberal Democrats pointed out, the National Audit Office report on the hospice sector that came out only yesterday states: “DHSC and NHS England do not know what proportion of the total amount of palliative and end-of-life care provided in England is delivered by the independent adult hospice sector, and therefore how reliant they are on the sector”, or what the real impact of Government funding is. It continues: “In 2024-25, 11 independent adult hospices in England reported service reductions or staff redundancies, and other hospices announced plans to reduce services, in response to reduced income or increased costs. Cuts appear to be across all types of services offered by hospices. Most hospices reported the increase in the costs of service delivery within the palliative and end-of-life care sector as being the primary reason for service reductions…Six hospices have been designated by ICBs as ‘commissioner requested services’, a mechanism to forewarn ICBs of potential difficulties with services that, should they discontinue, would have significant impact on the local population”. Hospice UK responded to that, saying: “unfortunately the whole hospice sector is…struggling, just as demand for their services is rising. Surging costs mean 2 in 5 English hospices are planning cuts this year, and 20% ended last year with a deficit of over £1m.” What does that actually look like in real life? In my area, LOROS is facing a deficit of £2 million. It has already had to reduce its in-patient capacity from 31 to 20 beds, and it is reducing its day therapy and cutting its physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work, chaplaincy and complementary therapies, and closing the volunteer home-visiting service. It is not just my region that is affected: a cursory look at Hansard will show that the Kirkwood hospice in Kirklees has made 19 redundancies; the Ashgate hospice in Derbyshire has 52 jobs at risk, with beds cut from 21 to 15; St Catherine’s hospice in West Sussex is looking at 40 job cuts, with half of its new rooms being mothballed; Weston Hospicecare—highlighted both here today by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), and by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) at other times—faces an increased national insurance bill of £139,000; the Arthur Rank hospice in Cambridgeshire is losing £829,000, which is forcing the closure of nine beds, 40% of its capacity; and Marie Curie has pointed out that its national insurance contribution costs have risen by £2.9 million. Through all this, we have still never heard whether the Health team knew that this was going to happen and chose to push it through, or whether it was simply an oversight when it came to challenging the Treasury. Ever since the Budget, we have never heard an answer to that. At the time of the Budget, the CEO of Marie Curie, Matthew Reed, said: “The Health Secretary himself has acknowledged that palliative and end of life care is not good enough, so we are shocked by the lack of measures in the budget to fix it. Palliative care needs are projected to rise by 25% over the next 25 years, around 147,000 more people each year, yet this government lacks a strategy to tackle the magnitude of this challenge.” Have the Government made an assessment of how much the NICs increase has impacted the hospice sector? As has been mentioned, Together for Short Lives estimates that the average hospice is facing a bill of about £133,000. I raised a lot of these questions in a debate in January, and the Minister for Care kindly wrote to me in response. It is not just about the financial side; we are looking at the structural aspect too. He wrote: “As you are aware, integrated care boards…are responsible for the commissioning of palliative and end-of-life care services to meet the needs of their local populations. To support ICBs in this duty, NHS England has published statutory guidance and service specifications. In addition, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence…has published quality standards and guidelines to support commissioners to carry out this duty. While the NICE guidelines are not legally binding, they act as a regulatory benchmark for best practice in palliative and end-of-life care…Whilst the majority of palliative and end-of-life care is provided by NHS staff and services, we recognise the vital part that voluntary sector organisations, including hospices, also play in providing support to people at the end of life and their loved ones.” So there is a grey area about where hospices are covered, and that fits in with the NAO report.
The hon. Lady is spot on; that is exactly the point that I was getting at. While there is a legal duty in terms of palliation, what that palliation looks like is important. Her question was also raised by the hon. Member for Strangford, who asked whether it is now time to have a strategy dedicated to palliative care, given the rise in demand. The letter goes on to say: “Charitable hospices are autonomous organisations that provide a range of services that go beyond that which statutory services are legally required to provide. Consequently, the funding arrangements reflect this.” We are in a grey area, and a palliative care strategy could well be a way to unlock this problem. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say on this issue. However, it is not just about finances and commissioning; it is also about the workforce. That is partly addressed in the letter: “As set out above, we have committed to develop a ten-year plan to deliver an NHS fit for the future. This summer, we will publish a refreshed NHS long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service we will build over the next decade so that patients can be treated on time again.” By my calculations, we are coming up to Halloween and even bonfire night, and we still have not seen a workforce plan. My question to the Government is: when are we likely to see that? That leads me on to my next point: how do the Government intend to ensure that palliative care specialists are included in neighbourhood health centres? The 10-year plan is laudable, and I think there is agreement across the political spectrum on its contents, but the one thing it is missing is a delivery chapter. How are we going to do it? The shift is correct, but we do not know how we are going to get there, so I would be grateful if the Minister could address that. The 10-year plan explicitly talks about public-private partnerships, and there is concern on both sides of the House that we could see PFI mark 2. If Members need to have their memory jogged, private finance initiatives brought in £13 billion to build hospitals and services, but at a cost of £80 billion to taxpayers. Why does this all matter? In my last few moments, I will turn to the final question that was posed by the hon. Member for Strangford, which was about access to 24-hour support. I will quickly read out a couple of comments from one of my constituents, whose husband Mat sadly passed away from a brain tumour. She highlights this issue: “During the day, the support was outstanding because I could call the community nurses and the palliative nurses, and they would always call me straight back. They would visit Mat daily to administer the medications needed in his syringe drivers. They were kind, caring and so supportive to us and our family. The night times were different and frightening. Often during the night when I was trying to get support, he could see how scared and stressed I was, which made him more scared, often telling me he was okay just to try and not make me worry. Every night I used to be thinking what might happen tonight—will Mat have another seizure? Will he be in so much pain again? Will they call me back if I need support? How long will it take to get help to arrive?” Marie Curie points out that only seven of the 42 ICBs in England have a single point of access. I raised this issue with the Minister in a letter in August, and he kindly responded in September. He pointed out that integrated care boards must commission on this basis. There is NICE guidance on “End of life care for adults”, under quality standard 13, and on “End of life care for adults: service delivery”, under NICE guideline 142, which talks about the fact that there should be some form of 24-hour care, but at no point did the letter address the issue of the phoneline. When I asked the Department about data, I was told in a letter: “Regarding data about palliative care helplines, such as average waiting/response times, the Department does not collect or hold this information.” Will the Minister look at that and consider whether the Department should hold such information? The letter went on to say: “We recognise that more could be done to support the palliative and end-of-life care sector. I have tasked officials within the Department and at NHS England to look at how improving the access, quality and sustainability of all-age palliative and end-of-life care to ensure that their proposals are in line with the ten-year plan.” I would be grateful if the Minister could ask the Minister responsible whether there is indeed an update and what that looks like. At the end of the day, we are concerned not necessarily about inputs, but much more about outputs. We know that death is certain for us all; only our willingness to face it seems optional. This is very much a British mentality, and I believe we need to change that when it comes to talking about death and our mortality. We need to speak more openly and candidly about what an ageing population looks like, for that is what we are. That is why the hon. Member for Strangford brought forward this debate, and he reminds us that we chase the days ahead while never quite noticing how swiftly they turn into years behind us. That leads me to reflect on the fact that, as politicians and as a society, we build a world to live longer, yet we all too easily forget to ask: how do we want to grow old?
Given the recent National Audit Office report and the fact that the tax increase to national insurance contributions has had the biggest impact on the voluntary sector, has an impact assessment been carried out into how much the cost has gone up for hospices in England to provide their services? If not, will the Minister consider it?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Members for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) and for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on securing this debate and on their very emotional speeches. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk for his bravery in talking about his own care. I commend Zoe’s family for their bravery and for their work to turn a family tragedy into something positive for other people, which is fantastic. Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer and, frighteningly, the fifth most common cancer in the United Kingdom: almost 20,000 people are diagnosed each year. It usually starts in skin or a mole that is over-exposed to ultraviolet radiation, and then it spreads to vital organs such as the lungs or the liver. One of the challenges is that melanomas can be difficult to identify. I am a paediatrician, not a dermatologist, but I remember looking at pictures of melanomas and moles in medical school, and in lots of cases I struggled to see the difference that the lecturer was pointing out. They can be brown, red or pink; small or large; flat or raised. Unlike other cancers, which tend to progress as they grow larger, melanomas can be lethal even when they are very small, which means that there is no time to lose in having the diagnosis. All suspicious moles removed by the NHS should be tested, but those judged benign or removed in cosmetic or beauty settings are not necessarily tested, as has been said. There is therefore the risk that, if that judgment was wrong, the cancer can go undetected and it can have tragic consequences. I want to ask the Minister what steps she is taking to strengthen the regulations in the aesthetics and beauty sector, in particular, and in the private medical sector. What will be done about lasering moles in a way that prevents identification of a melanocytic lesion? We know that AI can help. There are now computer systems that look at moles in photographs and are reasonably reliable at discerning whether something is malignant. That can be done in conjunction with doctors and histology as an additional layer to ensure there are no mistakes. Will the Minister update the House on what she is doing with AI? One of the big shifts that the Government have talked about is digital, and that is one of the options available to them. The Government have said that improving diagnosis is a key part of their national cancer plan. Will the Minister give us some highlights from the plan? We were expecting it to be published this year, but it is apparently now delayed until next year. There are rumours that that is to have a presentational effect on 4 February. Given that more than 1,000 people are diagnosed every day across the UK, I really hope that there are not presentational reasons for the delay. It would be helpful to know when she intends to publish the plan. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that the plan will have on the progress of speeding up cancer diagnosis for patients? How does she plan to expand access to genomic testing, which can also help to identify the most at-risk patients? The Government have talked a lot about the shift to prevention, which is always better than cure. In about nine out of 10 cases, melanoma can be prevented. Avoiding over-exposure to the intensity of the sun, applying sunscreen and wearing suitable clothing can help to defend our bodies from the risk of developing melanoma. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the VAT charged on sun cream to the incidence of skin cancer? Sun cream can be quite expensive and young people may find that a barrier to applying it. With the Budget coming up just next month, the Minister is in a prime position to make that case. It takes only one blistering sunburn to more than double someone’s chances of developing melanoma later in life. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that young people are aware of the risks of sunburn? What discussions has she had with the Department for Education about making sure that young people are aware of the risk? Figures show that 65% of 18 to 32-year-olds report annual sunburn. Alarmingly, in May 2024, researchers predicted a record high of 20,800 skin cancer cases for the year. I worry that sunburn is increasingly regarded as one of those things—a sort of hallmark of a foreign holiday. What steps is the Minister taking to raise awareness of the link between sunburn and skin cancer? It is not always sunny in the UK. That is why over one in four people, and 43% of 18 to 25-year-olds, use sunbeds to top up their tan. However, that comes with significant health risks. Researchers estimate that sunbeds cause 440 cases of melanoma and around 100 deaths every year in the UK alone. I was surprised to discover that only 62% of people know that sunbed use increases the risk of skin cancer. Worryingly, researchers found that 23% of 18 to 25-year-olds thought that using sunbeds instead of the sun would reduce their risk of skin cancer. What steps is the Minister taking to bust those myths? Will she consider using her women’s health strategy to raise awareness of these issues, which put mostly young women at risk? Banning under-18s from using tanning beds was undoubtedly sensible, but insufficient enforcement mechanisms have been set up. Unfortunately, a 2025 survey by Melanoma Focus of 100 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK found that 34% were still using sunbeds despite the ban. Exposure to indoor tanning before 35 is associated with a 59% increase in the risk of developing skin cancer. Does the Minister have any plans to strengthen the enforcement of regulations that restrict the use of sunbeds by young people? Frustratingly, not only do the regulations not stop vulnerable people using sunbeds, but they fail to restrict irradiation levels. A report suggested that over half of Tyneside sunbed salons exceeded the irradiation limits, putting users at even greater risk of cancer and melanoma. What steps will the Minister take to put safety first and ensure that sunbed irradiation levels are enforced? The key measures against a cancer as deadly as melanoma, and our best defences against fatalities, are prevention, early testing, catching it early and good treatment. Given that such a high proportion of cases are preventable, I am interested to hear more about the Minister’s plans for further prevention and to know how the cancer plan will help. What are her thoughts on the plan for Zoe’s law to ensure that a histology test is always done so that no one slips through the net?
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is nice to have his name on the record. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for bringing the topic to the House’s attention. In my constituency, this is rapidly becoming one of the most frequently raised issues. The biggest problem is that people who have worked hard, saved responsibly and bought a home in good faith find themselves trapped in a system that is opaque, unaccountable, and, in the worst cases, exploitative. Like other Members, since being elected I have been inundated with complaints about one company in particular. We all know its name: FirstPort. It is, by some distance, the most problematic housing management company operating in my constituency. My office is dealing with almost 40 open cases relating to developments that it manages. The stories are depressingly consistent: residents describe unexplained charges, unclear billing and long delays in resolving the simplest issues—we have heard many such examples today. They send long chains of unanswered emails. They attend my surgeries exhausted and frustrated. When my team contacts FirstPort on residents’ behalf, we often wait an unacceptable length of time for a reply, and progress—if it comes at all—is slow. Earlier this year, I and other Members of this House met FirstPort’s managing director. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you see me as a chilled-out kind of guy, but I left that meeting with my blood boiling, and other Members had a similar experience. We asked straight- forward questions but received vague answers, rehearsed corporate language and no clear commitment to improving customer service. A group of MPs will meet FirstPort again soon, and I hope that the company has set to work in earnest. On reflection, what angered me most was that many of the people caught up in these issues are elderly. They feel intimidated by the complexity of the system. They are passed from pillar to post, ignored when they raise legitimate concerns, and made to feel like an inconvenience simply for asking what their money is being spent on. However, when FirstPort wants payment—this is something that it is very good at—its communication becomes clear and very persistent. When residents in several developments tried to move away from FirstPort, essential financial documents, including sinking fund balances and reconciliation statements, were withheld. In some cases, large sums of residents’ money were retained for months, preventing new management companies from planning maintenance or accounting properly. In my constituency, local resident directors Karen Wheeler and David Buller—fierce campaigners—have documented delayed fund transfers, missing paperwork and opaque accounting. Karen eventually gave up trying to reconcile the final balance because the spreadsheets were, in her words, “unfathomable”. For Karen’s development, the cost was about £500—quite a significant sum for many elderly residents—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate rightly said, the real issue here is the power imbalance. Residents have no transparency, no clarity and no meaningful route to resolution, despite FirstPort’s own code of conduct, which promises transparency, value for money and excellent customer service. I think we can all agree that that does not stack up. This is neither an isolated concern nor a partisan one. Former Ministers have highlighted FirstPort and other companies being consistently associated with high charges and poor service. The BBC has reported homeowners being billed for things such as “terrorism insurance”, without any context, while basic grounds maintenance is not completed. More than 30 MPs have written jointly to FirstPort demanding action. We all know that the problem is structural. Far too many homeowners are locked into contracts they never chose, are forced to pay service charges for poorly maintained communal areas, and have no ability to change providers when the services fail. As we have heard, many homeowners on private estates—the so-called “fleecehold” estates—are effectively paying twice: once through council tax, and once through service charges. Leaseholders trying to sell their homes frequently face long delays and eye-watering administration fees, and what should be a proud milestone—owning or selling a home—becomes a source of stress and financial burden. We have heard that legal protections exist, but they are not enough. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will bring mandatory transparency—
I have one minute left and I will make my final points. The Act aimed to bring mandatory transparency, through standardised billing, greater rights to challenge charges, and easier routes to taking over management, but those reforms are not yet implemented. Why is that? I hope that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will set out a course for when those measures will be implemented, and will say what new legislation will be brought in to ensure that people are protected. I finish on a point on which I think we all agree: residents who are on these schemes do not need more consultations; they need action, and this Parliament must deliver.
A major lodge development at Irvine House near Canonbie, and the potential for a Center Parcs in the borders, show that there is still great potential for jobs in the tourism industry my constituency. Will the Secretary of State encourage the Chancellor to follow the advice of the Scottish Hospitality Group and give hospitality a fair deal in the Budget, rather than clobbering it as she did last time?
I thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, as you have done with a number of others, but this important issue should not have to come to the Floor of the House by way of an urgent question. The Government must be more proactive. The Minister for Africa gave a commitment to the International Development Committee that they would be more proactive during this Parliament, and I hope that that commitment will be honoured. Will the Minister set out more fully what discussions there have been with the UAE? Not only are there concerns about the use of weapons, but it is clear that the UAE has significant influence over the RSF and is a key player. It is stated by the Government that we have influence with the UAE, so are we using that influence to ensure that it uses its influence with the RSF?
Kelloholm is a former mining community in my constituency. Like the rest of Upper Nithsdale, it has few amenities, so it came as a complete shock to local people when, out of the blue, SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council suggested closing the Hillview leisure centre as a possible budget-saving measure, despite the centre’s pivotal role in the community for youth work, employment support programmes, children’s parties and other social events, as well as gym, sport and recreation uses. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on the council to abandon this knee-jerk and ill-considered proposal, which would do real damage in and around Kelloholm, and will he spend more time calling out the Scottish Government’s deliberate policy of starving local authorities of the resources they need?
I welcome the all-new ministerial team to their positions. They have inherited a crisis, because business confidence has plunged to a record low since the Chancellor’s Halloween budget a year ago today. Will the Business Secretary assure this House that he will find and demonstrate his backbone, stand up to the Chancellor, and encourage business investment by following Conservative plans to reduce welfare spending so that we can scrap the family business tax and cut small business rates?
I associate myself with the remarks about British Beauty Week. In addition to beauty businesses, one of the key ingredients for growth on our high streets is having a post office in the mix. As Post Office Minister, he has inherited a network of 11,500 post offices across the country and a consultation on the size of that network. Can he echo what his predecessor said at the Dispatch Box, and commit to supporting our high streets by maintaining the scale of the post office network throughout this Parliament?
The cut to London’s affordable housing target has a direct knock-on effect on constituencies like mine in Huntingdon, where we are being forced to deliver thousands of new homes, creating an urban sprawl that could destroy the individual character and charm of many of our villages. In a Sky News interview last week, Sadiq Khan was challenged on how he has been reporting the figures for years by counting housing starts that have had no building work done and no spades in the ground, with no increases to London’s affordable housing stock. At least 2,000 houses that he counted as started in 2023 before his re-election have still not been started today. In Ealing alone, almost 1,000 homes that he claimed have been started simply have not. Will the Committee investigate and scrutinise the manipulation of housing stock figures by the Mayor of London?
On Tuesday, the Ministry of Defence announced the launch of Project Fairfax, which will see a defence technology cluster established on surplus MOD land at RAF Wyton in Huntingdon. This is a hugely exciting opportunity for both Huntingdon and the MOD, as we seek to create a defence ecosystem in sites we have identified across Huntingdonshire. With a decision yet to be made about identifying investible sites, and regarding the £600 million fund available through the strategic sites accelerator programme, will the Secretary of State meet me and the chief executive of my local council to discuss the inclusion of potential defence sites in Huntingdon?
As chairman of the parliamentary support group for the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, I welcome the publication of the long overdue Shawcross report. Will the Leader of the House accept that the Government must now make a serious attempt to heal the wounds and deliver justice for the victims and their families, who have waited so long for compensation? With that in mind, will he find time for a debate on the report’s recommendations, the handling of the issue by successive Governments and the prospect of delivering specific compensation for the victims of the atrocities of the Docklands, the Baltic Exchange and Harrods, among other tragic attacks, as called for by the families and specifically the Docklands Victims Association led by Jonathan Ganesh?
I welcome the team to their significant roles for the United Kingdom. This week, the other place voted for five reasonable amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, representing a meaningful compromise with cross-party support to mitigate some of the worst of the damage caused by the Bill. As the Office for Budget Responsibility now scores the impact of that legislation, this is one of the last chances to avoid the costs, taxes and spending cuts that will result from it. Will the Secretary of State now put country before party, do the right thing by British business and accept those compromise amendments?
I will save time, Mr Speaker, by not mentioning the 13 leading business organisations that have all called for certainty now—not well-intentioned future consultations on implementation, but certainty now, because jobs and the economy are bleeding out. The Secretary of State will know that even the Resolution Foundation—that wonderful finishing school for aspiring Labour Ministers—said this week that some of the measures in the Bill should not be proceeded with.
At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister offered scant reassurance to business owners trying to create jobs and growth in the face of higher taxes, costs and regulations. The Institute of Directors warns that: “Business confidence has plumbed new depths”. Ahead of Small Business Saturday on 6 December, will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate to celebrate and recognise the business owners working so hard and making great personal sacrifices to support jobs and services in our communities?
My constituents are increasingly concerned about the rising number of houses in multiple occupation. Can the Minister assure me that any overflow from these bases will not lead to an increased reliance on HMOs in our towns and cities, including Walsall, and may I ask what further powers the Government will give councils to protect the private rented sector from being squeezed out as a result of this?
The Bill illustrates a wider theme that we see across a number of debates in the House, which is the gap between the Government’s words and how they vote. Indeed, that is illustrated by a number of the new clauses that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have already spoken to. New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), highlights the inconsistency within the Labour manifesto that sets out a commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, but then says that even if they commit an offence so serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more years, that person is too young to be named. I asked the House of Commons Library to clarify that. A custodial sentence of four or more years is not given out lightly by the courts, particularly not to those of that age, and it said that this would involve serious sexual offences, murder, or armed robbery. We see tweets from Members of Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death, but Labour Members are not willing to vote to name those who commit such offences. It is wrong to deny victims transparency when such serious offences have taken place, but it is bizarre to do so when also saying that those same people are old enough to vote at that age. Such inconsistency is not limited to new clause 14, so let me take a second example of new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). Many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, “Well, what it said on energy bills isn’t what they have done; what it said on council tax isn’t what they have done; and what it said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.” With the Budget coming soon, I think that we will shortly see that what Labour said on tax is not what this Government are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it: “Change.” I do not think that most voters realised that what Labour meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy—
Indeed, change for the worse. It is bizarre that when serious offences take place, quite often it is the judiciary who get the blame. Perhaps I have an unfashionable view in that I think that we have a very high-quality judiciary, but it is easy for people to look at sentences and then quickly leap to criticise the judiciary, saying that it is their fault that sentencing is wrong. Indeed, there are such cases—the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has highlighted some concerning conflicts of interest of some within the judiciary—but it is far more common that issues arise because the judiciary are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines. I remember a constituency case where someone was killed by dangerous driving. It highlighted the fact that while this House had increased the sentencing for such crimes, the sentencing guidelines set so many obstacles to getting a maximum sentence that, in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House had intended. Key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos, meaning—as my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), highlighted—the public often do not have any idea who is making the decisions. I come back to the Labour manifesto. It promised change, but when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people, applying the same approach; that is anything but change. If the manifesto is to deliver change, it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House and Ministers take more responsibility.
Indeed. The new clauses under debate highlight a wider principle that is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process: the sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they do not feel were on the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that this is not just an issue with this Government; the Government in which I served were guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos. There are lessons to be learned from that, as today’s debate has highlighted well. Let me turn to two new clauses on which the House will divide. New clause 19 applies to something that unites the House: the horror at the murder of a police officer or prison officer. This is particularly pertinent to me, as I have the privilege of representing a constituency that contains a maximum security prison, HMP Whitemoor, where the safety of prison officers is paramount. The new clause is also important because we all benefit from the safeguarding provided by the police—in my case, Cambridgeshire police. What message do Ministers think is being sent not just to police and prison officers, but to their families, if they decide to vote against new clause 19? It is not enough just to tweet after events to say how sorry they are. The Government have an opportunity to vote to do something, and we will see in the Lobby how they vote. Finally, I turn new clause 20. I do not think that I was alone in being deeply moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). It is most effective when Members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that transcend party politics. Anyone hearing about Tony’s case cannot help but feel revulsion, horror and shame about the offence committed, and my hon. Friend spoke with such passion to highlight it. As a former Minister who has sat where the Minister now sits, let me say that I hope he reflects on the case put forward in new clause 20. I do not believe that any Members want to see loopholes exploited—to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the tracking of any future offences. When someone speaks with the sort of professional expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling spoke, to raise very practical concerns, it is important that Ministers take those concerns on board. The concern raised through new clause 20 is shared across the House. There is a defective element in this Bill, and Members have an opportunity to address it. The expectation is that there will be a vote on new clause 20. It is not about people’s words, but how they vote, that will determine the response. I hope that Members across the House will respond to new clause 20, bearing in mind the case of Tony, which was highlighted to the House, and that they will do the right thing.
Before we start, it has been drawn to my attention that a photograph is to be taken in the Chamber at 11 o’clock. We have no power to suspend this sitting to accommodate that, but I will try to get a message to the Speaker’s Office to say that there are Members here who would like to be in the Chamber for that and that if it could be held off until about 11.5 am, that should give Members here time to get across. Those of us taking part in the second debate will not have that luxury.
Order. Let us get the ground rules right: this is an intervention, not a speech.
Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. The Chair deprecates scripted interventions; they are supposed to be spontaneous.
Order. Before we proceed, I should say that eight hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I propose to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. We have tried to get a message to the Speaker’s Office and I have not had a response, so we do not know what the score is. If the Front Benchers curtail their remarks, I can suspend the sitting slightly early. Those who are participating in the following business will have to remain here, but other Members should be able to make it to the Chamber by 11 o’clock. I am minded to put a time limit on speeches, but for the moment, if we can work on a self-denying ordinance of five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in. I call Josh Dean.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—until the summer, I was voluntary chair of the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. I pay tribute to Mr Justice Simon Picken and Dr John Sorabji, who co-chaired the review, along with each member of the working party and the Civil Justice Council secretariat. Third-party litigation funding plays an important role, enabling citizens in the UK and businesses to bring claims against larger and often better-resourced firms and organisations. Litigation funding involves an investment company that is not involved in a particular legal case providing all or a portion of the legal costs of a claim, in return for any damages awarded. The typical area in which litigation funding operates is in high-value commercial, arbitration or group litigation claims, particularly in the Competition Appeal Tribunal—a key route for competition-based group claimants to attempt to seek redress and, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority, one of two pillars of the UK’s globally recognised competition regime. Litigation funding provided financial resource for cases to be taken in the initial stages of the Post Office Horizon scandal, Bates v. Post Office, as well as providing resources in cases taken up against car manufacturers, such as one over false diesel emissions, cases focused on data breaches, those involving car financing and, most recently, a high-profile case last week involving Apple and charges for app use on the App Store.
I agree with the hon. Member; the Vodafone case, which involved franchisees across the UK, is another example of how litigation funding can help. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case in July 2023, which involved a claim against truck manufacturers for anti-competitive behaviour, rendered many third-party funding agreements unenforceable by bringing them in scope of another type of legal funding agreement, damage-based agreements. The impact of the judgment on the litigation funding market has been two years of instability and a lack of clarity about its contractual operating terms. The last Government sought to remedy the issue by introducing the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which had reached Second Reading in the House of Lords immediately prior to the election.
I agree with the hon. Member; I will come to some protections that I think he might be attracted by. The last election stopped the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which was going to overturn the PACCAR judgment, but on 1 August 2024, Lord Ponsonby said in a written answer to a parliamentary question that the new Labour Government “recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in ensuring access to justice. Following the PACCAR judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements…The Government is keen to ensure access to justice in large-scale and expensive cases, whilst also setting up adequate safeguards to protect claimants from unfair terms. The Civil Justice Council is considering these questions and others in its review of third-party litigation funding, and hopes to report in summer 2025. The Government will take a more comprehensive view of any legislation to address issues in the round once that review is concluded.” The Civil Justice Council review concluded in June this year. The litigation funding industry, businesses and the legal sector await the Government’s response. The current lack of response to the report is causing significant uncertainty to the sector and additional costs for those fighting for businesses and consumers. Although the Government are inevitably busy on many fronts, action on this is needed now and will be positive for the UK economy. I will return to the recommendations of the CJC report shortly, but I just want to emphasise two broader points. First, the legal sector in the UK was worth about £52 billion in 2024, up by about 10% on the previous year. Litigation funding is estimated to have quadrupled since 2013, with more than £1 billion capital estimated as currently available to litigation. In 2023, PwC UK predicted growth at a compound annual growth rate of more than 8% over five years. On a global basis, the global litigation funding market was approximately $20 billion in 2025 and is expected to be closer to $49 billion in 2035. Legal services with litigation funding are an important component and a vital export opportunity as the UK continues to be the leading centre for global disputes of all kinds and can stand to win significant revenues from deals such as the ones the Government have done with India, the US and, this week, Turkey. Services of all shapes and sizes, but particularly legal services, are a key UK economic sector and we should bear that in mind during this debate. The second broader point is that litigation finance significantly assists with access to justice, as we have heard, discouraging large companies from anti-competitive or anti-consumer behaviour. Litigation finance funds cases of all shapes and sizes, but particularly class actions where there is a potential case against large and often global firms who unknowingly—or often knowingly —have breached the UK’s competition law. UK competition law was crafted over many years to ensure an efficient market protecting consumers and fostering fair competition between companies, encouraging better and more effective growth. Both issues matter to UK citizens as they directly impact incomes and financial costs for families across the United Kingdom. We need one of our most successful service sectors to operate with a full focus on expansion and growth. That means more jobs, which mean more tax revenue. We need UK consumers to have routes to take on the huge might of the global companies from which they buy products and services, but that have such large market share and resources that they can more or less do what they want. The Competition Appeal Tribunal was extended in 2015 by the coalition Government to include opt-out collective actions to enhance competition, ensure prices stay fair and that businesses do not abuse their position and keep innovating. As Ministers said at the time: “Competition is one of the great drivers of growth”, For many consumers, who are often on low incomes, cases in the CAT, funded by third-party litigation funding, is the only route to challenge and hold large companies to account. Neither point is intended to imply that everything is perfect, but the PACCAR judgment and the need for legislation to remediate the situation, the CJC report that is the topic of this debate and a recent call for evidence on the opt-out regime at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, run by the Department for Business and Trade, all risk slowing down an important growth market for the UK if Government responses are not executed quickly, proportionately and with vision. Improvements can clearly be made to the oversight of the litigation funding sector, and also in the operation of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Having said that, despite heavy lobbying for change, there is no evidence that the UK’s ranking as a destination for foreign direct investment has been affected by our vibrant competition regime. Moreover, private enforcement of the regime through the CAT seems to be good value for money, with just over £5 million in costs for the Competition Appeal Tribunal and £118 million for the Competition and Markets Authority. The first recommendation of the CJC report is: “Legislation should be introduced to make clear that litigation funding is…a distinct form of funding”. It also recommends that the effect of the PACCAR Supreme Court judgment should be overturned. Although the market has, to an extent, adapted to that judgment in June 2023, the bulk of submissions to the review and elsewhere highlighted the impact on the provision of funding. Less money has been delivered to claimants, and there has been a reduction in the number of CAT cases. The report’s main ask is to get legislation in place and to overturn PACCAR. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on when that will happen, and a clear timeline. It would be good to get it done in this Session of Parliament. I would also be interested in the Minister’s comments on the change being retrospective, which seems fraught with complications. On the previous Bill’s Second Reading debate in the House of Lords, Members raised concerns. Other flagship recommendations in the CJC review relate to the move from self-regulation by the Association of Litigation Funders not to the Financial Conduct Authority, which some proposed, but to light-touch regulation put in place by the Lord Chancellor. The proposals are for differential regulations for the type of claimant: very little for commercial disputes, and lighter touch for consumer, representative or class actions. The review proposes a minimum baseline set of regulatory requirements, focusing on case-specific capital adequacy, codification that litigation funders should not control the litigation process, conflicts of interest and money laundering. Additional light-touch regulation is proposed for groups and consumer claimants, to include a consumer duty, early court approval of the funding agreement and a court assessment of whether the lender’s return is reasonable. Further measures include the provision of independent legal advice for consumers before entering into funding agreements, and a prohibition on litigation funders controlling proceedings or settlement proceedings. In reflecting on the proposals, the Government must be alive to the risk of fettering an innovative and successful industry that enables consumers to mount challenges against Goliath-sized firms. I encourage them to take a pragmatic view, driven by the market. There may be merit in applying some elements of the CJC report through regulations, but it is worth considering strengthening the current self-regulation regime, including by getting all players operating in the UK market to join the Association of Litigation Funders—it is a self-regulation body has a code of practice, but not all litigation funders are in it. I call on the industry to get everybody operating in litigation funding in the UK on board in the association. There are proposals to use redress schemes and other forms of non-court-based resolution more regularly. I believe strongly in alternative routes to settlement, so I agree strongly with those proposals. Much more can be done to offer settlement options, including encouraging settlement rather than litigation, offering mandatory mediation in parts of the CAT process, and making mediation a clause within the process for litigation funding agreements. Avoiding costly disputes is generally a good thing. Focusing on settlement, not litigation, in the Government response would help in that regard. Mandatory mediation would also help to ensure that disputes between litigation funders and law firms are handled more clearly. Although I acknowledge that improvements need to be made, I hope that the Minister and the Government will reflect on the potential motivations of some of those who look to impose heavy changes on opt-out. Opt-out, and its reliance on litigation finance, offers consumers a powerful opportunity for redress. The Government opt-out review, introduced earlier this year, references perceived burdens of the current regime on business, but there seems to be little evidence of our competition law putting off inward investment. The UK is seen to be a great place to invest and the same arguments that helped to build the UK competition rules stand today. If there is no fear of being brought to book, some companies will continue to rip off and abuse consumers. If they are abiding by UK competition law, they have nothing to fear. While acknowledging that improvements can be made, we should be sceptical of those who seek to fetter consumer rights and should instead make the case for an expansion of those rights in the interests of our citizens and UK economic growth. A strong defence of consumer rights is the best way for the UK to continue to thrive, for the UK economy to grow, and for inward investors and domestic businesses to stay lean and competitive. Whatever the Minister’s response today, I hope that the Government will soon introduce a Bill to address PACCAR, the primary recommendation of the CJC report, and will seek to look at practical ways to implement elements of that report while avoiding adding burdens, cost and micromanagement on to an innovative and important sector.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on obtaining this important debate. A number of powerful points have already been made, but I want to put on record the concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents who have children at, or who work at, the Anglo European School in Ingatestone in Essex. Like the schools that have already been mentioned, the Anglo European has an outstanding reputation locally and attracts children from a wide area, not just the immediate vicinity. One reason for that is that the Anglo European is the only school locally that offers the international baccalaureate. The IB course is extremely rigorous, but it provides a breadth of curriculum that is not available in other courses. Many parents choose for their children to undertake it because the result, as has been mentioned, is a higher chance of gaining admission to top universities or employment. The IB is rigorous, requiring a lot of extra teaching time as a result, and it is in recognition of that that the large programme uplift was instituted. In the case of the Anglo European, the IB requires something like 1,500 hours of teaching time over two years, compared with 1,280 for the standard programme. The value of the uplift to the Anglo European is something like £55,000, and if it is withdrawn, the school will probably be unable to continue to offer the IB. Like other schools that have been mentioned, the Anglo European draws pupils from a range of different backgrounds and contributes to social mobility. If that course is not available there, it will be available only in the independent schools. Of course, this policy is being introduced at the same time the Government are pursuing their vendetta against independent schools by putting VAT on school fees, which will result in them being further out of reach for the vast majority of people. The result of all this is that only the very richest are likely to be able to attend schools that offer the international baccalaureate. As has been said, the policy was also introduced without any warning. One of the assistant headteachers at the school said: “The Department’s letter arrived with no prior warning or consultation, right in the middle of sixth-form information events for next year. This results in…uncertainty for school leaders and governors about whether the full IB Diploma will be viable for this school next year.” You have made it clear, Sir Roger, that you do not want a lot of these points repeated, so I will not speak any longer, other than to quote what another of the teachers said to me in a letter: “Without a resolution by the end of this term, the school will be forced to consider alternative curriculum pathways, which would close off the full IB Diploma course from future generations of state school pupils, directly contradicting the government’s promise of a ‘broad curriculum.’” Like other Members, I hope the Minister will think again.
The Minister will be aware that Türkiye was removed from the F-35 programme following its acquisition of the S-400 Russian air defence system amid concerns that it could compromise the F-35 technology. Can he say whether Türkiye has agreed to return the S-400, and if not, is he confident that our technology will not be similarly at risk?
As we return to consideration of this dreadful Bill, we debate amendments and new clauses that are designed to mitigate its worst effects, in particular new clauses 43, 21, 18, 19 and 20, which I have signed, and new clause 1.
It is early in my speech, but such is my regard for my right hon. Friend that I will.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about my experience in government, which are far too flattering. I agree that new clause 1 is precisely the kind of amendment that the Government could accept. He will know from his time in government, as I do, that no Act is the Bill as it began, for Bills metamorphose during their consideration. Wise Governments listen to arguments that are made during scrutiny, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and the best Ministers allow the Bill that they introduced to change over time. That is the purpose of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has done a service to this House in tabling this new clause, thereby allowing the Minister to improve the Bill in the way he suggests. As we have debated this Bill over time, a distinct difference has emerged between practicalities and principles. The question remains: is this a Bill built on expediency—a necessary response to the unbearable tension between prison supply and the demand for prison places—or a Bill born of a distaste for incarceration as a means of delivering justice? The first is inexcusable; the second indefensible; but neither is inexorable. In practice, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, if remand were treated in a different way—and that, essentially, is about more court sittings and more court time for faster access to justice—fewer prisoners would be kept on remand. If we do not believe that, we would have to assume that every person brought to trial would be found guilty or imprisoned, which cannot be true. If we dealt with the huge number of foreign national offenders more swiftly—[Interruption.] I know the Government are making those attempts, but it is not enough, any more than what the previous Government did. If we dealt with that issue more swiftly, we would alter the demand for places, for too much of the debate focuses on the supply of prison places and not on the demand-side drivers that absorb places, which could be eased. When we last debated the Bill, we talked about my ideas for supply-side change. I will not repeat myself, for you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the amendments and new clauses before us today. However, the Minister needs to think more laterally and creatively. I imagine that he is a bright man—or bright-ish, at least. If he did so, he could look at those demand-side drivers and deal with the practicalities. As for principles, it is time to end the liberal orthodoxy that has perpetuated the pervasive myth that crime is an illness to be treated, and not a destructive, deviant decision that warrants punishment. In the previous debate we heard many times the argument that everyone deserves a second chance, which I have no doubt underpins much of the resistance to the amendments proposed today. As I listened to the powerful case my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) made, I asked myself this: can anyone in this place with a heart believe that those who terrorise and torture children persistently and who maim and murder innocent babes—sometimes their own—deserve a second chance? Can anyone with a heart really believe that those who killed two people dedicated to the service of others—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, Members of this House—deserve a second chance? Does that awful self-deluded Islamist fanatic who plotted and planned and executed little girls at a pop concert deserve a second chance? The only second chance they all deserve is when they stand before their maker and beg for forgiveness. For us to forgive such extreme acts is to play God. Forgiveness at that level and to that degree is beyond any Member in this Chamber, for it is beyond any human being. That is what I think about second chances.
I simply say to the hon. Lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those who are unelected and unaccountable, we are no longer doing our job. Her view, which has prevailed for a very long time, is not entirely the fault of Labour; it is a problem with the whole political class. We have created every kind of body imaginable in every aspect of government to do things that should be done by this House and by Ministers of the Crown. The Sentencing Council is just another of those bodies. Who knows who is on the Sentencing Council? Certainly most of the hon. Lady’s constituents and most of mine would not have a clue, and they certainly would not know how to influence them in any way. Of course, it is working people who are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the social circles that the Sentencing Council no doubt occupies. It is the hard-working, patriotic and law-abiding majority in my constituency and hers who are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kinds of crimes rather than punishing them as they deserve to be punished. There is a new future emerging in the post-liberal age as we build a new order. That order will be inspired by time-honoured truths, rooted in the will of the people and powered by a ceaseless determination to recapture our country for our people. Burke said: “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” The tyranny of the cruelty of crime and disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose. I urge the House to accept the variety of amendments that I have mentioned and the many others on the amendment paper that are attempts to rescue the Bill from that horror.
Q10. Given all the hatreds there are in the world today, was it not a lovely moment to see the King and the Pope pray together in the Sistine chapel? Does it not give us hope that these historic divisions can be resolved? Does it not give us hope that, despite the fact that Ukraine and Gaza may seem intractable problems, if we have the will to preserve the freedom of all people to live in their own country, and if we have the will to have faith in our common humanity, these problems can be resolved and we can win through?
1. What discussions she has had with farmers in Wales on the potential impact of planned changes to inheritance tax relief on the agricultural sector.
I welcome the Minister to her place. The impact of the changes to IHT goes far beyond just farmers. Last month, a Pembrokeshire farm gathered 57 businesses from vets, machinery dealerships, and milk processors, to electricians and fencing companies, employing almost 11,000 people. Almost half of those were totally reliant on incomes from local farms. Have the Government fully considered the ripple effect of that policy on farms in Wales and across the UK, including in my constituency?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school. I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism. IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year. According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon. Members from across the House today. The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to? Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget. Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences. Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision. As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries. In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one. Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth? I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision. State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students. We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases. No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes? Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision? The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers. In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers. With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country. Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions. Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life. We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.