5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I want to be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) made an interesting point about the funding that organisations receive through their police and crime commissioner. Can the Minister confirm that, once police and crime commissioners disappear from our framework, the same funding—or more, perhaps —will be available to those organisations? If so, how will they receive that money?
T6. I have received over 70 complaints from tenants in my constituency who are resident in Places for People properties about its failure to maintain its obligation to fix the property and carry out basic maintenance. Are the Government aware of whether this is a more widespread problem, and is there anything they can do to encourage Places for People to fulfil its obligations?
When I led a debate in Westminster Hall last week on the impact of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, I could not possibly have anticipated that it would have been powerful enough to stop it dead in its tracks. I welcome the pause to tranche 3, but I want to get a bit of clarity for the councillors in my constituency. The plan is going to be reviewed. If it comes back, will we potentially see local elections in May 2028 for a new shadow unitary? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State meet me and Huntingdonshire district council to discuss some of the topics that are still outstanding and the reason why Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was delayed in the first instance?
We are 26 months in, and the Secretary of State has already admitted that the real cost that the Government have not assessed are the costs of the lost programmes, projects and services that have not been delivered in West Sussex and Arun because the bandwidth, headspace and resources have been devoted to LGR. Can she tell me, first, what has been the financial cost—nationally, in West Sussex and in Arun—of this so far failed experiment with LGR? Secondly, how many months can the district councillors elected in 2027 expect to serve?
No small boats arrived on Hayling island or in any other part of my constituency yesterday. Nevertheless, residents are concerned, and agree with me that anyone who enters the UK illegally should be deported within a week and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Minister also agree, and will she and the Home Secretary meet me, and other Members on both sides of the House, to explain the police and Home Office responses, and why Labour has lost control of our borders?
As a former schoolmaster, my right hon. Friend will be familiar with the work of Piaget, who makes exactly that point: early development—prior attainment, as it is often called—is a determinant of subsequent progress both at school and beyond it. In rural communities such as mine, it is vital that the delivery of the services my right hon. Friend describes is done in a peripatetic way, ideally through what were once called district nurses—familiar figures in the community who could engage with local people and build trust. I wonder if we ought to add to his Bill, in the form of an amendment, a call to bring back district nurses.
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about Sure Start, and in particular about the capacity to deliver what she describes as face-to-face services. It is critical that those services are delivered in precisely that way—in person—because of the trust that that creates. As a new parent in 2000, having never had a child before, I remember that my wife and I were dependent on exactly those kinds of very trusting personal relationships. I fear that more and more of those kinds of services are being delivered now online, and people are being driven online to attain them. We must reverse that trend; it was exaggerated, of course, during covid, but it has never really recovered since.
I have come to know and become a friend of my hon. Friend over recent times. She will understand that although it is easy for us to imagine the vulnerability of unborn and born children, the vulnerability of new parents is often underestimated. They can feel, as she describes, nervous and uncertain, as they can be frightened of making mistakes. When people have their second child, it is a lot easier, as I am sure many Members would acknowledge, but in those first days, weeks and months, it is difficult. What this Bill creates is a cushion for those vulnerable parents that I have described.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This is the first private Member’s Bill that I have moved in 30 years, and I have been somewhat discombobulated by the extraordinary amount of effort that has gone into getting just six clauses before the House today, so I am deeply indebted to the Government Whips Office, which has been extraordinarily helpful. I do not know what is happening to this Parliament—it is vastly more helpful than I was ever expected to be when I was a Government Whip! Anyway, I am equally indebted to the Ministers and their private offices and, indeed, to the parliamentary draftsmen. Of course, included in those Ministers was the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has pursued this particular agenda in opposition and in government, frankly, since God was a boy. Equally, I give my thanks to the Public Bill Office, which has been exceptionally helpful, and to our former Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, and her 1001 Critical Days Foundation. Finally, I give thanks for the heavy lifting done by my parliamentary assistant and by our former colleague, Will Quince, and his team. Of course, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Standing Orders are clear: we do not refer to people in the Gallery—I take it you have got the hint. This Bill responds to the widely held view that services for infants, prospective parents and parents of young children are somewhat vulnerable when they rely largely on non-statutory guidance and programme funding. The purpose of the Bill is to shine the legislative spotlight on those services and to ensure that they are systematically understood and are known about and scrutinised by Parliament. It is a truism that if we want a better future, we need to start with the provision of services to babies today. It is vital that those services are available in that critical period of 1,001 days from pregnancy through to two years old. If children are confident that they are safe and if they are responded to properly by adults, they will build relationships, they will be healthy, they will have language development and their future learning will be assured. That is vital. It is vital that we make that impact in those early weeks, months and years when 1 million neural networks are being formed every second and the baby’s brain grows to 80% of the weight of an adult’s brain by two years old. If those services are not available, and if problems arise and are not addressed, there will be problems with speech, problems with relationships and problems with development later, so it is vital that they are there.
I will address exactly that point shortly. If a child is not developing properly and is not sleeping, feeding or communicating, parents need to know that they have somewhere to turn. If that difficulty is spotted by, let us say, a district nurse, a midwife, a health professional or one of the excellent workers in our family hubs, help is on the way. If that help does not arrive or does not arrive in a timely manner, problems will present later, when they will be much more difficult and more expensive to address. I have received an enormous amount of advice from clinicians at the top of their game and from frontline workers with enormous experience, laying out all the vital services that ought to be provided for by a Bill such as this and, indeed, offering me substantial help in putting the Bill together. It would be perfectly proper for hon. Members to share that sort of advice with the Minister today, and that is the proper place for it. This Bill is quite deliberately written at a higher level. It does not specify what the services should be; it empowers Ministers to regulate and make provision for those services. That is the overwhelming purpose of the Bill. Of course, there is a vast amount of evidence out there that suggests that all these services are vital, be it perinatal mental health services for parents, relationship training for parents and their child or the peripatetic services that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to, as is the systematic provision of those services. All that is vital, and if it sounds familiar it ought to be, because that is what is being delivered to a large extent by our excellent Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme. The Bill does not provide something new in the way of services; it will make those services accountable, more easily scrutinised by Parliament, and therefore less prone to being deprioritised. We might recall what happened to much of the Sure Start programme, and let that be a salutary lesson, particularly for Opposition Members.
The Government removed the requirement to ringfence the funding for Sure Start, and because local authorities were not required to spend that money in that way, they made their choices accordingly. I accept that it was the wrong priority, and I hope the whole House is the better for knowing that.
I remember with respect to my own children the importance of a visit by the midwife, even after birth, and that is essentially the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was making about the importance of district nurses. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to define these services, and the functions that the Secretary of State will carry out. Their primary duty is to work out what those services actually contain.
Yes, essentially today we are putting these services on a statutory footing. Of course subsequent Governments can change statutes, but this Bill makes it an explicit decision of this House and Parliament, rather than a fiat by Government decision. Clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess the need for these services, and that includes a duty to take into account the opinions of parents, prospective parents and carers, as far as reasonably possible. The first duty is to define what services and functions we are talking about, and the second is to make an assessment of need. The period in which to make that assessment must be no longer than three years before another period of assessment begins. Clause 3 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to then make provision for the services that she has assessed are needed. To address one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, that takes account of the fact that there may be different levels of need in different areas. Clause 4 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the provision of those services and the outcomes that arise from them. Clause 5 is largely an interpretation of terms used within the Bill, be it “infant”, “prospective parent” or “prospective carer”. Clause 6 determines the short title of the Bill and provisions for its coming into force. Effectively, this Bill lays a series of duties to make regulations on the Secretary of State: first, to specify services and functions; secondly, to assess the needs for them; thirdly, to provide for those services; and, fourthly, to report accordingly to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank hon. Members for their contributions. I am presented with the difficulty of forming a Standing Committee that balances those who supported the Bill on Second Reading with those who opposed it. If any of those Members who were unfortunate in not catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, nevertheless want to serve on the Standing Committee, I will attempt to accommodate as many of them as I can. During the debate, a number of Members referred to the need for breastfeeding and its importance. It reminded me that for many years, my wife was a breastfeeding counsellor for the National Childbirth Trust. Part of the training for that involved being a breastfeeding agent for the Egnell breastfeeding pump, which clients could hire for £1 a week. It was a bit like an iron lung that sat in our basement. It went “ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa” and extruded the milk. It was always a mystery to me why my SodaStream delivered a cloudy product, and it was not until later that I discovered that I had been serving milkshakes, because my wife had been using the machine and storing her product in the ice maker. The Education Act 1944, or the Butler Act, which made such a profound difference to the lives of children in our country, was preceded by the coalition Government’s White Paper, in which they set out their vision in 1943 for “a happier childhood and a better start in life”. Let us hope that we have begun a process today with this legislation that will have as profound an impact. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), and I thank him for his continued work and his commitment to this Bill. As colleagues may know, this Bill carries a particular significance for me, as I recently celebrated the first birthday of my son. In fact, today we celebrate him being 395 days old, so I am pleased that Members on the Opposition Benches are taking action to highlight the undeniable importance of those critical first 1,001 days in a child’s life. I hope that Members from all parts of the House will join me in supporting this Bill. In Leicester East, we are fortunate to benefit from an excellent quality of service throughout the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland NHS trust. I put on record my thanks to the wonderful nurses, doctors and midwives who supported me through my pregnancy and birth and have supported my son on several occasions since. To be clear, this Bill is not about critiquing the quality of healthcare we receive through our NHS, or placing further demands on the hard-working healthcare professionals who serve on the frontline every day. It is focused on establishing an enduring legal foundation for the best start in life and the healthy babies programme. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are a time of rapid and vital development. During this period, babies strengthen their physical, neurological and emotional capacity, with the brain reaching about 80% of its adult size by the age of two and forming more than a million new neural connections every single second. To support that profound chapter of change in a newborn’s life, babies must be safe and secure. That not only improves the first 1,001 days of their life, but has a lasting impact into adolescence and adulthood. Statistics show that children whose mothers were stressed during pregnancy are twice as likely to experience mental health difficulties during those teenage years. By investing in the measures promoted by this Bill, we change our approach from crisis management to prevention. We will target early support for families to ensure that they are prepared to manage those early days of parenthood, saving billions of pounds of annual spending on public services later down the line. In an ever-changing world, with swift advances in healthcare and technology, we must continue to check in with the parents and carers who are taking on responsibility for these new lives. We must also continue to be available to prospective parents and carers—those who anticipate the arrival of new life with great excitement, but also with great trepidation. Listening is a fundamental part of what we do here, and we have to make sure it stays at the forefront of all decision making in this House. I have been privileged on a number of occasions to spend time with the incredible Sally and her team at Leicester Mammas. They do some amazing work within my constituency supporting mothers through the early stages of parenthood.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that wisdom, and I could not agree more. As a first-time parent and a young mum, I can confirm that I have felt the pressures faced by many mums across the country. Again, that is why I am grateful to Leicester Mammas for providing guidance in my post-partum journey, including breastfeeding support. They give encouragement to my family and many other families across Leicester, and they have truly grown to be an integral part of our community. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reported in 2024 that up to 85,000 mothers across England had experienced post-natal depression. That is staggering, and it is all happening well within the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life. The last national maternity review, in 2024, described the harsh and devastating reality that three in 10 women reported symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress just six months after giving birth. We have to do more, and that begins with being better listeners. The Bill would enable the Government to continue to monitor the situation for parents and carers, prospective parents and carers, and newborns, but ultimately we have to make sure that our listening is followed up by action. The second component of the Bill would improve the level of accountability in that area. The third element of the Bill focuses on information and support, specifically in ensuring that we introduce a stronger legal foundation beneath the resources and services that families rely on during pregnancy and the first 1,001 days. There sadly remain inequalities throughout our system. The reality in many of my constituency’s communities is that pregnancy and childbirth are far from straightforward. Evidence shows that women living in the most deprived areas die during childbirth at nearly twice the rate of those living in the least deprived areas. Having a firm legal basis for the care that is provided to new mothers across demographic groups will ensure that some of the anxiety is taken out of pregnancy. For many mothers and prospective mothers in Leicester East, that would be life-changing. As a mother with a son who is growing up at an unbelievable pace, I know the reality of both the challenges and joys of the first 1,001 days. However, no country in the world has fully recognised in law the huge opportunity that strengthening the support to families in this early period carries. It would be transformative, and I support the Bill because I know from personal experience as a new mum that, as many mums in this House will also know, parents and carers need more support, and I believe the Government can offer that. We have the evidence to back up the need for the Bill, and we are now presented with the perfect opportunity to lead the world in our approach to championing young families and their children. I urge Members across the House to join me in supporting the Bill.
I join many others today in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing this debate and on his choice of topic. There does seem to be an enormous amount of agreement in the Chamber today, and I know that he has secured cross-party support for the Bill, which is excellent. Like everyone else present, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. While I, like many others, do not have my own children, I am an aunt to four, a godmother to four and a friend to many people who have children. I have been looking after my friends’ kids since I was about 18, so I am pretty adept at changing nappies; I know how to get them to smile and how to do all those things. We have heard mention of the value of the wider family and friendship group, and I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill from that perspective. As a result, I know that there is a reason why we say, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”—it is because those earliest years really do matter profoundly. During the first 1,001-day period, secure attachment is built through a baby’s everyday interactions with their parents, their carer or, indeed, their aunties and uncles. A smile, a cuddle, a comforting voice—those simple moments lay the foundations for emotional wellbeing. I certainly hope that the 24 hours in which I was the only person to provide my 18-month-old nephew with all those things added to his wellbeing, rather than detracting from it—we will see in a few years’ time. I think he generally knows who I am and is happy to see me, so that is fine. By the age of two, a child’s brain reaches around 80% of its adult size. As Lord Cameron has said, “mums and dads literally build babies’ brains.” By supporting parents from the very beginning, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce the need for costly state intervention later down the line. That is why I support the Bill’s intention to put services during pregnancy and early childhood on a stronger statutory footing. The reporting requirements in the Bill will mean that decisions on funding cannot be made in the dark, ensuring that services such as Best Start family hubs and the healthy babies programme remain a Government priority. Family hubs provide a vital one-stop shop for parents, bringing together practical support under one roof, from breastfeeding advice to work to help to reduce parental conflict. Plymouth was one of the original 75 local authorities selected to participate in the Conservative Government’s family hubs programme back in 2022. The council has now successfully established a network of 11 hubs. However, interestingly, there have been recent reports about funding changes, and trying to find out information on what is happening, who is responsible and what is going on has been really difficult. Therefore, anything that ensures that that reporting back is done—particularly on funding and sustainability when external agencies are providing those services—will be particularly important. As an advocate for family hubs, when I have constituents come to me and say that people working in those hubs are being made redundant, I want to know what is going on and whether delivery is continuing. It is important to remind ourselves that the value of family hubs is that they are open to everyone. However, I believe that more could be done to encourage parents to use them. So far, only 16% of parents with a child under five have used a family hub, despite 66% having heard of them, according to a poll from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It is clear that we need to do more on that.
I thank my hon. Friend for that good point, which I am particularly passionate about. I have spoken a lot this week about funding for rural services, particularly under local government reorganisation, and that will be really important in the future structure of unitary councils. How can we ensure that villages and smaller towns get access to family hubs and things like them—and whatever else comes about following the Bill—and that people are not reliant on infrequent public services or on having a car to get to them? I am glad he mentioned that, because it gives me even more reason to continue on my journey against local government reorganisation in my constituency. My hon. Friend also highlights how we want every community to have a family hub. I am considered to be the MP for the slightly well-off bit of Plymouth, so I am incredibly grateful that the city set one up in my constituency, but there are whole communities in my constituency, such as Plymstock where I was a councillor for many years, that do not have a wellbeing hub or a family hub. If we are to do this, we must ensure that we do it properly. I want to take the opportunity to remind the House that family hubs are a Conservative innovation, grounded in the principle that strong families make for a strong society. I am delighted that the Labour Government have committed to build on our success and roll out family hubs to all local authorities, not just those initial 75. I must also say that they are not merely Sure Start rebranded.
I thank the hon. Lady. I mentioned to one of my colleagues the other day how this entire debate is catnip for Labour Members, because it is an opportunity for them to highlight that they have cared more about families and children than the Conservatives. I do not believe that; I believe that we have always cared about the vulnerable and ensuring that the right thing is done. To bring the House back to the point and bring down the temperature in the Chamber, I want to talk about what is good about family hubs and why they are different. The key point is that they are not just Sure Start rebranded. Sure Start did good things, but we felt at the time that it was not necessarily targeted in the right way. I pay significant tribute to Lord Farmer. If it were not for his work and his personal commitment in all sorts of ways—he effectively trailblazed the family hubs policy—we would not be here today. Family hubs have provided a model that we can replicate. That is not to say that Sure Start did not provide the opportunity to do something similar, but the distinctive thing about what Lord Farmer set up and that we put into practice in government—he is seeking to work with the Government to continue it—is that it is not just for the early years but for people right up to the age of 19. Regardless of what we think about what happened in the past, what family hubs are called and what they do, I think we all agree that we need to provide support right through to when a child is 19 and to give families that opportunity. We have heard many people speaking about the challenges in teenage life if we do not get it right at the beginning.
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course, if we are going to do this properly, we have to make sure that the funding is there, which I think is the entire point of the Bill. I agree with that, but the great thing about family hubs is that they set out an intention right from the start that it is not okay to just ringfence the money until the age of five; we need to ensure that we provide support all the way through. There is a lot more work to be done on both sides of the House to develop what that looks like. I think we are in pretty good agreement on this, whether it is support up to five or beyond. At the end of the day, we want families and young people to have the best start, as the name suggests. It is worth pointing out that family hubs are required to provide support for children up to the age of 19, or 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There is clearly a lot more thinking to be done. I appreciate that the Bill will specifically ringfence provision for under-fives, but ultimately we do not want there to be a cliff edge—we do not want all this support to suddenly drop off when children get to five because that would not maintain and make the most of the family hub model as it was established. When I visited the Rees centre family and wellbeing hub in Plympton in my constituency, I was very impressed with what is going on there. It is a brilliant community asset that has been there since the ’60s. There is breastfeeding support, but what is also amazing is that it has a time bank, so there are all these mums bringing in their babies to see the health visitor or to be weighed—all the things that a family hub does for under-fives—but there are also older people from the community coming to meet, socialise and do things together. When a family hub or a Best Start centre is truly embedded in a community, it has the opportunity to be a place where all sorts of things are delivered, and that combined delivery makes them even better. We do not want them to become centres where only people with children and those who have families go; we should open them up, to do as much as possible within the community, because that is at the heart of what they can do. It is really important that we look at the whole picture, as well as focusing on the first 1,001 days, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to deliver family hubs right up to the age of 19. As we discuss earlier support, there is a little elephant in the room. Evidence consistently shows that children under the age of two need to be nurtured by their parents primarily, and I think we are all saying the same thing today, but it is my personal view that parental presence requires childcare choice. More than two thirds of working mothers with pre-school children say that they would work fewer hours if they could afford it, according to the Department for Education, but too often parents feel pushed towards a one-size-fits-all model of formal childcare. We need to explore where we can offer parents more options in the earliest years and free them up to do what they feel is best for them and their family. It is not about telling parents what to do; it is about trusting them to make the right decisions for their family. We must never forget who matters the most to the baby: it is their parents. We should do everything we can to help mums, dads and carers be present as much as possible. This Bill must be the start of a wholesale reframing of family support. Every stage of childhood matters, and we must back families every step of the way. That is why I am very keen to support the Bill today.
In essence, what my hon. Friend is doing, very ably, is to try to defend those who defended us. May I place on the record that, in that noble aim, from the Conservative Benches he has our wholehearted and undivided support?
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I am grateful to the sponsors of this snappily-titled Bill, who are the deputy Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge); the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy); the shadow Housing Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); the shadow Minister for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois); my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst); the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Devon (Ian Roome); and last but definitely not least, because he has been such a massive advocate and supporter of this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Members will know that one of those sponsors is a Liberal Democrat and another is a Democratic Unionist party Member. I did try very hard to get a Labour Member to sponsor the Bill, but to no avail, and I am very sad about that. Equally, I notice that we do not have here any Members of the self-styled patriots, the Reform party. They do not even have a defence spokesman. I suspect, though, having watched the television last night, that they will have quite a few defence lawyers! I would like to apologise to the hundreds of people across the country who have written to their MP at my request, asking them to be here today and to support the Bill; I am incredibly sorry that the Government so disliked the Bill that we have had four and three quarter hours of the House in fervent agreement with itself, albeit on a very important issue, which means that I get 15 minutes at the end. This is a tactic. I feel very sorry for those veterans sitting in the Public Gallery, who have been here since 9.30 this morning expecting to hear a debate in support of our veterans. They will be as confused as I am as to why the Government so dislike this Bill. The reason I am quite so discombobulated is that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who thought this issue was sufficiently important to make it a resigning issue, has sadly not thought it sufficiently important to be here today. He said that the Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Bill is not fit for purpose and that “It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect…people who did their duty under conditions most individuals in Westminster will never have to imagine.” The good news is that I do not have to imagine. I declare an interest: this Bill would affect me, because I did four tours of Northern Ireland. I spent three and a half years of my life trying to bring peace to that place. What I will do, because I am incredibly time constrained, is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway is under orders that at 28 minutes past the hour, he will make a discreet tug on my jacket and that at 29 minutes past he will positively yank me to the Bench in order that the Bill does not fall. The Bill is very simple. In a nutshell, it would place into law that there could be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless and until there was new compelling evidence in the view of a Supreme Court judge. It is really that simple. The Clerks have done all the hard work on the wording, as have the generals and the veterans’ community to bring forward the Bill today. The Government are promising us that they will bring forward protections for our veterans via amendments. Now, given that this Bill will not really progress today, maybe the Minister would consider taking the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, and simply re-presenting it to the House as one of the Government’s amendments to its own Bill, because I think it is completely reasonable. I cannot remember which US President said it, but it is amazing what you can achieve when no one is worried about who gets the credit. I do not mind whether the Government want to take credit for this. I would be the happiest veteran in the country if they simply took my Bill and made it one of their amendments. I know the Minister for Veterans and People well, having served on the Defence Committee, and that is my entreaty to him. The reason why—[Interruption.] I do beg the pardon of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); I made the unreasonable assumption that it might be a Defence Minister replying to the debate. I have outlined, in a nutshell, what the Bill does and why it is important. When I was getting ready for my first Northern Ireland tour, we were training, and they had invented a thing called the coffee jar bomb. It was lethal. It was a Nescafé jar with a length of scaffolding in it and what was affectionately known as “shipyard confetti”—nuts and bolts—as well as some plastic explosives and a plunger switch, which is the sort of thing in a fridge door that turns a fridge light off. That would be rigged up, in the shape of a coffee jar. It would then be carried to a riot and often slung over a wall, so that there was no line of sight, when troops were known to be on the other side. The coffee jar bomb was designed to kill and maim, but it was also designed to put us troops on the horns of a dilemma. If a soldier saw someone with a coffee jar in their hand, and they looked like they were going to throw it, could that soldier reasonably open fire under the rules of engagement? It could just be a coffee jar. To prepare for our upcoming Northern Ireland tour in Belfast in 1992—by the way, there was a young second lieutenant called Ben Wallace in the same battalion getting ready at that time—we would have our judgmental shooting tested on a thing called a cine range. In the cine range, we would lie on the floor with our sub-cal rifle in our hand, and a scenario would build up in front of us, whether it was a public order situation or a sniper getting ready to shoot. We knew the rules of engagement and we could see the scenario building up. At the critical moment, when the soldier thought that the threat required it and the rules of engagement allowed it, they opened fire and the action froze, and a tiny pink dot would appear on the screen to see whether they had hit or not. The instructor would then debrief the soldier as to whether they had acted reasonably or could in fact be prosecuted. One scenario was devilishly difficult. It was a public order scene, with one of these coffee jars was being passed around. At the point of launch, I said to the instructor, “Stop the tape.” The action froze, and I said, “Can I open fire?” My instructor paused, and he said, “Sir, you have chosen a very difficult moment indeed. It is at times like this, sir, that you remind yourself that it is sometimes better to be tried by 12 men than carried by six.” It was completely chilling, but that is, in effect, what we have done for decades; we have put young men and women on to the streets of the United Kingdom with a rifle strapped around their neck and very few rights in addition to those they have as a private citizen. We have sent them on patrol to try to keep the peace, with bad people on all sides trying to do bad things to them. On that Northern Ireland tour, I had the words of my colour sergeant ringing in my ears—it is better to be tried by 12 men than carried by six—but it turned out not to be true. It turns out that you get tried by one man, in the case of two of our guardsmen who were involved in a judgmental shooting situation; they were convicted of murder and given life. I raise that to make the point that these cases have been investigated and judgments have been made. What I am seeking to do with this Bill, and hopefully with the Government’s amendment, is to draw a line—a fair line—under the never-ending cycle of investigation, inquiries, inquests and prosecutions that is itself used as a punishment tool on our veterans. Ask any veteran involved in this space, and they will tell you that the process is the punishment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that there is support on the Government Benches as well—I just could not find it when I went out to get sponsors. There are many veterans on the Government Benches, and on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and there is a lot of support for this measure in the country. I hope that the Government will listen to that body of feeling. Why does the Bill matter, and why should it get the support of the House? It matters because of a very important thing, which is called the moral component of fighting power. The British believe in a model in which there are three components: the physical, which is the guns and the bullets; the conceptual, which is the way in which we fight; and the moral, which is how we fight, why we are prepared to put yourselves at risk for the British citizenry—the man and woman standing next to us—and that we will do our best to achieve our mission, and potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice. The moral component is more important than all the other things. Napoleon, who was a great believer in the model, observed that the moral is to the physical as three is to one. We undermine the moral component of fighting power at our peril. This gave me no joy: someone sent me a meme, which was a real photograph of the former Prime Minister—it was not mocked up—addressing a load of troops who were getting ready to deploy, and the caption said, “We want you to go to Ukraine, where we will ask you to do things we’re going to prosecute you for in 30 years’ time.”
There is no moral equivalence in my book between men and women who served their nation in good faith and did a difficult job in a deadly environment, and what the terrorists did. It is worth pointing out, if any hon. Members are feeling queasy about my Bill, that one thing it is not is an amnesty. No one is looking for a free pass here. If, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, there is new, compelling evidence, by all means those cases should be reopened. But we cannot allow this never-ending not-so-merry-go-round of prosecution and investigation of our people to continue. The trouble is, in Northern Ireland everything is totemic. Because the Good Friday agreement was a peace agreement, it deliberately did not answer the question, “Who won?” So, as an extension of the troubles by other means, this is becoming part of the answer to that question. The more people that can prosecute our troops, the more they seem to have answered that question. We must bring an end to it. I commend the Bill to the House.
This might be an opportune moment for the House to pay tribute to Dolly Parton, who did an enormous amount of work across the world to encourage children of all ages to read.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on his achievement in bringing this Bill forward. We all know how a varied job being in this place is, and he is testament to that: after all these decades, he gets to do something brand new. That encourages us all to keep doing new things in this place, however short or long our time is here. I support this Bill, because it is about one of, if not—I would argue—the most important issue that sits before any society: how to successfully raise the next generation. The manner of that challenge has changed enormously over the course of human history. Even just a few hundred years ago, the single biggest thing that a parent could do to successfully raise their child was to get them to adulthood, as 50% of all children died before reaching adulthood. In this country, the equivalent figure now is about 0.5%. Although the loss of every child is a tragedy, those figures show the big change in the challenge that parents face. In fact, as another way of illustrating the difference, suicide accounts for a quarter of all deaths of older teenagers in this country. More than anything, the challenge for parents now is to raise content, productive children who go on to lead fulfilled lives as part of a much more complicated society. My interest in this area is one of the main driving forces behind my wanting to get into politics. It dates back to my time as a medical student and some of the experiences of meeting patients. In particular, I remember a lady who came to see me the first time I was in placement at a GP practice, when I was a student. She had come to see the GP because she did not know how to get her children to go to bed on time. I remember thinking, “What an absolutely valid thing to want help with,” but I wondered what was going on in wider society that resulted in the GP being the only person she felt she could get help from. I also remember from my paediatrics placement a dynamic professor who sat us down and gave us a seminar about attachment theory. I was astounded to learn that, at age four, a child can be tested for whether they are attached to their caregivers; if they are not, that is enormous predictor of their future health outcomes. All the way at the other end of the spectrum, as an A&E and general hospital doctor looking after older patients, I often wondered where their children were and what had gone on their family to lead to there being no bond or attachment—they often spent many days in hospital without anyone coming to see them. In my work as a volunteer policeman, I have met young people on council estates where membership of gangs and crime were rife. Some young people had managed to overcome those challenges, and the thing that seemed to stand out as a protective factor was their parental and family environment. We have heard a lot today about the challenges and perspectives of parents. I am not a parent—I hope to be one day, but I am not at the moment—so I wanted to offer that perspective that we have all had as a child on the receiving end of what we are talking about today. I began to reflect on how different the people I met and the scenarios I came across were from my own experience. My parents are divorced, so mine was not a perfect image of what a family looks like, but I felt incredibly supported and loved, and I was taught enormously the importance of values and morals in a way that only a parent a can, sometimes even in opposition to the state. I had an ambition to study medicine, and at a parents evening my A-level chemistry teacher told me I was predicted to fail that A-level and had no chance of getting into medicine. It was my mum who was determined that I would overcome that challenge. It was my mum who coached me after work in the evenings to pass my 11-plus, to get into grammar school. All those things came from my parents, including my dad in different ways.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it brings me nicely to my next point. In these scenarios we have to avoid any judgment or lecturing parents who are unable to do that, because there are many reasons why parents differ. It is not just about time or money; there is good research about the links between life outcomes and values and ideas in someone’s upbringing. There are all sorts of factors. It is difficult and things have changed so much. Several decades ago, most people were raising their children within walking distance of their wider kinship network. Most people saw their own parents at least every other day, and a wider network of people were involved in raising a child. That is much more physically difficult to achieve these days. We have had all the focus on social media and the challenges it presents. I will go on to thank the 1001 Critical Days Foundation later, but it has commissioned research into screen time for babies, showing the impact of excessive screen time even on babies, while our focus has been on older children. If we get this wrong, the consequences are for everyone to see. I am a shadow Justice Minister. Crime costs us between £170 billion and £250 billion a year. We know that if a child experiences four or more adverse childhood events, they are more than 20 times more likely to end up in custody at some point as an adult. All these things are interconnected. The question is: how do we help? I had the privilege of visiting Sidley family hub in my constituency relatively recently, and I spoke to the professionals there who meet and work with parents every day. I asked them, “What is the most important thing that you do?” The most important thing they say, consistently, to people from all backgrounds, was that it was okay to ask for help and to say, “I need help.” The most important thing they say, consistently, to people from all backgrounds, was that it was okay to ask for help and to say, “I need help.” It is about challenging the stigma, so that everyone feels it is all right to ask for help. We do not think we can necessarily do the plumbing, the gas or the electrics in our houses without help, and parenting is 10 times more complicated and difficult than any of those jobs. It is normal for people to think they might need some help at various points along the way. Returning to the Bill, there are a few reasons why I support it. The first is its focus on babies, because anything else we do further down the chain will not be as good as anything we do at the start. The sooner we do anything we can to help a parent be more effective, to help them understand the role and to support them, the more we get back from that investment. Our funding pyramid in this area is completely the wrong way round. Money builds up as we go further along the journey, but if that money was spent on day one and from conception onwards, we would get much more from it. The second reason I support the Bill is clause 1(2)(b), which talks specifically about supporting the relationship between a parent or carer and an infant. This is about relationships as much as it is about anything else, and it is great that the Bill states that so clearly. The third reason I support the Bill is the provision to report regularly. We all know that reporting does not necessarily create the impacts and change that we want, but it is a powerful tool for parliamentarians across parties to make it difficult for Governments to move an issue out of the spotlight, so I welcome that provision. I will also touch on the Bill’s terminology, and the fact that it talks about carers. I recently met a kinship carer in my constituency who was looking after her own grandchildren. Such people provide an enormous service to our society in so many different ways. I am talking not just about kinship carers, but adoptive parents and others. From a purely financial perspective, the money that would be spent on those children if they were in care of one form or another is astronomical. These people take that burden on, and it is natural and human to want to do that. I do not think we should be thinking about them doing it for money or paying them—people should want to look after their wider family network—but at the very least we should be spending money on making sure that it is as easy as possible for them to do that, so that if anybody ever said to them, “How was it being a kinship carer?” we would know that every single kinship carer would be a cheerleader and a champion for it. We want them to be able to say, “It was difficult, but I felt fantastically supported.” I do not think I have ever met anyone who says that about their experience of being a kinship carer.
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, because people stepping up in those circumstances is incredibly important. Those who have siblings will know the importance of siblings in helping each other out and supporting each other through life—I have experienced that. All these wider family networks do so much. If they were not doing it, the state would end up picking up the bill, and that would not be good for anybody, so I pay tribute to how this Bill recognises the wider set of people who are involved in raising children. I conclude by again thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West and the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I also pay tribute, as many others have done, to the right hon. Dame Andrea Leadsom for her work over many years. Like the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age two), and I thank the Parent-Infant Foundation for the work it does as the APPG’s secretariat. This Bill is a great opportunity to channel so much of the work that we want to do as part of that APPG. I welcome this debate and the attention it has given to the most important task ahead of any society, which is to raise the next generation successfully.
One of the other challenges I heard about in the family hub I visited was that, in constituencies like mine, we have towns but also lots of villages that are perhaps very far away. I agree with people having to physically go somewhere, but this is an example of where funding for rural authorities needs to reflect the additional costs involved in providing all sorts of services, including family hubs.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on bringing forward this important Bill and on winning first place in the ballot. I would like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her work on this topic. I also thank Will Quince and Andrea Leadsom and the 1001 Critical Days Foundation for their work. I must declare an interest: I am a consultant paediatrician, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a mother of three. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke of the importance of universality and concerns faced by all parents, especially first-time parents, and I agree. I was very familiar with babies when my first was born—I was working as a registrar in a large, highly specialised neonatal intensive care unit looking after babies with sepsis, babies born months early and those who were having surgical operations—but being a parent is different: the love, the joy, the sheer responsibility of looking after that little bundle of love. I am grateful to the midwives who provided me with support at that time, and I particularly remember Marie, who was good to me throughout all three of my pregnancies. The 1,001 day window from conception to age two is crucial. It is where the human brain is most malleable. It grows and develops rapidly and is making literally millions of connections. The care received and the opportunities provided through that period affect brain growth and the child’s development. Positive interactions—play, reading, singing and cuddles—strengthen that process. They improve brain connections, support healthy development, and improve emotional regulation and social skills. This continues into the long term. Sadly, the converse is also true: unresponsiveness, neglect and trauma interfere with this biological process. They disrupt the white matter structure connections. They affect a child’s brain growth. Successive Governments have recognised how crucial the early years are, and have tried a combination of various types of services—some universal, some targeted, but all with the same aim of improving children’s lives. Sure Start has been mentioned. The ringfence was removed, allowing local decision making—I believe that the new Prime Minister calls this “devolution”. The overall budget was strained, resulting in difficult choices, and under pressure, councils of all colours made some unwise decisions to cut some services. Previous Conservative Governments tried to support children with funded nursery and childcare hours, tax-free childcare and family hubs. In a recognition that children spend most of their time at home, the Hungry Little Minds programme supported parents in helping their children at home. The 1,001 days from conception to two years are key, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that care for a baby can start before conception. The national health service website advises women considering a pregnancy to ensure they have had a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, smear test and sexually transmitted infection checks; have stopped smoking; and are a healthy weight. It advises them to take vitamin D and folic acid, and to discuss any prescription medicines with their general practitioner to see whether they are suitable for pregnancy. The Government have ensured that, by the end of this year, non-wholemeal wheat flour must be supplemented with folic acid, which will reduce the number of neural tube defects. The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, when it starts to have effect, will also help to reduce problems in pregnancy. The Bill has been produced with the support of the Department of Health and Social Care, but it requires work across Government. It is not just the health service that will deliver better opportunities for children. There is obviously a role for the Department for Education, and things like air quality, transport services for people to access the services provided, and a strong wider economy are all important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that fewer people live near their extended family than was previously the case. That is something important to consider as we ensure that people have local support. The Bill will put children’s services on a statutory footing, but regulations will determine what that means. I am particularly interested in whether the Bill would have helped to protect two services that were given to my constituents. The Safe Families edge of care service provided befriending, practical help at home and daytime care. It ended on 30 June and has not been recommissioned by the Reform county council. This service tried to help children and families who were in difficulty and whose children were at risk of being taken into care; it tried to keep families together while ensuring that the child was safe. That has been cancelled. Reform also stopped Lincolnshire county council’s voluntary youth services grant funding. I am interested in understanding the Government’s plan for the regulations, because although the Bill protects services, regulations will say what those services will be and whether they will be funded. I am interested in hearing from the Minister about that. I am also interested in the use of the services themselves. We had a debate on vaccinations in Westminster Hall just the other day. Vaccinations are available for free for everyone, but not everyone takes them up. We can have the best services in the world, but if they are not used by the people who need them, they will not be effective. I am interested in understanding how the Minister intends to ensure a good uptake of the services. Every single baby is precious. As we have heard, everyone across this House wants children to have great opportunities. We all want them to achieve their best potential. That requires teamwork—parents, wider family, friends, community and tax-funded services. We must all play our part. Supporting the Bill may help to support children, and I will support it today.
The hon. Lady had a fantastic Adjournment debate nearly a year ago on breastfeeding support. My wife and I are now 384 days into having our first child. We have an organisation in Exmouth called Bosom Buddies, which is run by a fantastic lady called Jodie Wilkerson. She pretty much does it for free, and is constantly trying to get funding. I remember a point that the hon. Lady raised in that debate about breastfeeding support being a postcode lottery. Does she agree that as the Bill goes through the House, the Government need to look at supporting those organisations, which have given so much support to my wife, the hon. Lady and so many women around the country?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on putting a Bill in front of the House that has support from literally everybody in the Chamber? That is not true of the next Bill, which would protect our veterans from gratuitous prosecution under the Government’s new legislation. For that reason, the Government Whips Office does not want it to be properly debated or to progress today. The Bill we are debating is important, but it seems to me that we need to make time for another important debate about protecting our veterans. In view of that, I shall beg to move the closure.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will be conscious that there are in the region of 15 more Members wishing to speak in this debate, and we have not yet heard from the Minister, so I am not minded to accept a closure motion at this point.
An estimated 1.4 million consented homes in England remain unbuilt. Why will the Secretary of State not concentrate on getting those homes built before demanding that councils surrender more green-belt and greenfield land? Otherwise, developers just cherry-pick the most profitable sites, instead of building the homes for which they have already been given permission.
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an intimate link between local government reform and the successful carrying-out of major house building programmes? One of the reasons I warmly welcome her return to office is the failure of her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), either to confirm or deny on 16 July the report in The Times on 18 June that senior civil servants and lawyers in three separate Departments had been overruled when they advised him not to make local government reorganisation decisions merely at the behest of Labour-led councils. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at this issue again, particularly in the light of the number of boundary changes involved, and given that her colleague, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—now mercifully back in action—had originally promised that boundary changes would be rare exceptions, and that particularly strong reasons would have to be put forward in justification?
The Electoral Commission has made no formal assessment of this. It would be a matter for Parliament to introduce such legal protections. It is prescribed in law that poll cards and ballot papers must be provided in English or Welsh, but there are no other prescribed language requirements relating to election materials. The commission translates voter materials, including voter registration forms, into a range of languages, informed by census data and community insights on voter needs.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot respond to him in Cornish.
I will not try, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Electoral Commission is in discussion with his local authority at the moment, and I know it would welcome any further representations —[Interruption.]
I know the Electoral Commission will welcome any further representations that the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) wants to make. As I say, the commission keeps the languages it chooses to translate materials into under review.
May I welcome the Minister to his position? Farmers in Somerset and Devon are gravely concerned by this outbreak, as they are among the worst affected areas in the country. I am afraid that the Government and his Department have been asleep. He talks about increasing testing capacity, yet this Government have cut the money available for testing by 74% over the past 12 months. There are now reports that it is taking weeks for vaccines to reach the farmers and vets who need them. Can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that those supplies reach those who so desperately need them?