Caroline Voaden MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, it is possibly worth noting that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) attended only one of 42 European Parliament Fisheries Committee meetings that he could have attended, thereby never speaking up for British interests, and that is potentially why the common fisheries policy was not to our benefit.

• 12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are extremely concerned about changes to the PIP assessment system, and particularly how they will affect people with mental health issues and fluctuating long-term conditions. Those people may not be able to show the required evidence of how their ability to function is impacted, since their experiences do not always fit within the daily living and mobility assessment criteria. Can the Minister assure me that the assessment system will be updated to take those genuine challenges into account?

• 12 May 2025 · US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State says that free trade is essential for growth. What a shame that the trade across the UK is still so badly affected by us not being part of the customs union. When Labour was in opposition, he called for “a proper role for Parliament in how trade deals are ratified”, and argued that there needed to be “a much higher level of scrutiny than we are seeing now” under the previous Government. There are clearly many questions about how the deal will affect businesses in Northern Ireland. We have seen how the Australia trade deal has been allowed to undermine British farmers across the UK, animal welfare and food standards, thanks to a lack of parliamentary scrutiny under the Conservatives. Farmers in my constituency are worried that American agribusiness will undercut them with inferior meat. I hear what the Minister said about upholding SPS—

• 12 May 2025 · US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister provide reassurance that Members of this House will be given the opportunity to fully scrutinise and vote on the new trade deal with the United States?

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to focus on new clause 21. We can all see that the asylum system is broken and expensive, and the horror of people arriving in a desperate state on small boats is causing division and anger across our country. However, turning to a populist party that throws out soundbites that appeal to many but fall apart at the first hint of real scrutiny is not the answer. How do we address this problem? First, we need to dial down the volume and the divisiveness in this debate, and to talk about these people as humans, not numbers. We need to open up safe and legal routes for people genuinely fleeing war, persecution and conflict. We need to assess their asylum claims quickly and efficiently, and then help them into the workforce so they can start earning money, supporting themselves, contributing to the economy and, just as importantly, integrating properly into our society. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said on Radio 4 this weekend that his party’s chairman, the child of immigrants from Sri Lanka, was intensely patriotic, saying: “The whole point of coming to a country is that you adopt it”. That is exactly what asylum seekers will do when given refuge by a country that offers them safety. We have seen it since time began. Indeed, many in this House are the children of immigrants who have given back enthusiastically to the country that welcomed them. The asylum backlog stood at 91,000 at the end of 2024. While they wait, asylum seekers are trapped in limbo, unable to work or rebuild their lives and forced to depend on Government funds. This benefits no one. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 21 would lift the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment, which would help to manage the cost of asylum, benefit the UK economy and help asylum seekers to integrate. Evidence from the Refugee Council shows that, in the medium to long term, refugees in the UK make a net positive fiscal contribution. Initially, they rely more on public services, but within five to 10 years their tax contributions exceed their cost to the state. After five years, 60% to 70% are employed, approaching the national average for employment rates. A study by the Centre for Entrepreneurs shows that one in seven UK companies is founded by a migrant: 17% of non-UK nationals have launched businesses compared with just 10% of UK-born individuals. The reality is that we have an ageing population, with more people than ever aged over 85 who depend on services. We have fewer people paying tax, working and providing services, and more who have greater needs, particularly in health and care. The chief operations officer of CareYourWay franchising told me: “We are both baffled and deeply concerned by the government’s decision to revoke the visa route for social care workers. It is harrowing to witness such a critical sector continuously overlooked… This change will, without doubt, have a tangible and far-reaching impact… For many, this decision will not only reduce capacity—it may very well close doors.” The Liberal Democrats are pushing for more safe and legal routes for refugees, which we know will be crucial to help stop these dangerous channel crossings—

• 7 May 2025 · United States Film Tariff · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike many others in the House, I cannot say that my area—Totnes—has film studios, or that a major movie has been made in my constituency, but we do have a lot of creatives living in our community, from writers to musicians and producers. We also have a costume maker, who happens to be my daughter. I am very proud of her and she is entering this industry—an industry that we should all be proud of. If these tariffs materialise, they will deal another blow to the UK film industry following the strikes that we have already seen. Will the Minister assure us that he is ready to protect and insulate the UK film industry and all the jobs that it sustains, particularly freelance jobs, by pushing for either tax credits or business rate adjustments?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 11, and briefly to new clause 2. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government have missed a trick by not including in this Bill stronger provisions on children’s online safety. It is time for us to start treating the mental health issues arising from social media use and phone addiction as a public health crisis, and to act accordingly. We know that children as young as nine and 10 are watching hardcore, violent pornography. By the time they are in their teens, it has become so normalised that they think violent sexual acts such as choking are normal—it certainly was not when we were teenagers. Girls are starving themselves to achieve an unrealistic body image because their reality is warped by airbrushed images, and kids who are struggling socially are sucked in by content promoting self-harm and even suicide. One constituent told me, “I set up a TikTok account as a 13-year-old to test the horrors, and half a day later had self-harm content dominating on the feed. I did not search for it; it found me. What kind of hell is this? It is time we gave our children back their childhood.” New clause 1 would help to address the addictive nature of endless content that reels children in and keeps them hooked. It would raise the minimum age for social media data processing from 13 to 16 right now, meaning that social media companies would not be able to process children’s data for algorithmic purposes. They would still be able to access social media to connect with friends and access relevant services, which is important, but the new clause would retain exceptions for health and educational purposes, so that children who were seeking help could still find it. We know that there is a correlation between greater social media use among young people since 2012 and worsening mental health outcomes. Teachers tell me regularly that children are struggling to concentrate and stay awake because of lack of sleep. Some are literally addicted to their phones, with 23% of 13-year-old girls in the UK displaying problematic social media use. The evidence is before us. It is time to act now—not in 18 months and not in a couple of years. The addictive nature of the algorithm is pernicious, and as legislators we can do something about it by agreeing to this new clause 1. It is time to go further. This Bill does not do it, but it is time that we devised legislation to save the next generation of teenagers from the horrors of online harm. Ofcom’s new children’s code provides hope that someone ticking a box to say they are an adult will no longer be enough to allow access to adult sites. That is a good place to start; let us hope it works. If it does not, we need to take quick and robust action to move further with legislation. Given the nature of the harms that exist online, I also support new clause 11 and strongly urge the Government to support it. No parent should have to go through the agony experienced by Ellen Roome. Losing a child is horrific enough, but being refused access to her son’s social media data to find out why he died was a second unacceptable agony. That must be changed, and all ISPs should be compelled to comply. New clause 11 would make that happen. I heard what the Minister said about coroners, but I strongly believe that legislation is needed, with a requirement to release data or provide access to their children’s account for any parent or guardian of someone under 18 who has died. There is, as far as I can see, no reason not to support this new clause. Briefly, I echo calls from across the House to support new clause 2 in support of our creatives. Creativity is a uniquely human endeavour. Like others, I have been contacted by many creators who do not want their output stolen by AI companies without consent or permission. It is vital that AI companies comply with copyright legislation, which clearly has to be updated to meet the requirements of the brave new world of tech that we now live in.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  In South Devon last year, we had an astonishing 49,904 hours of sewage leaks, or 5.69 years-worth of sewage pouring into the glorious Dart and Avon and into the sea around South Devon. Meanwhile, my constituents write to me about bills that have gone up by as much as 50%. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an outrage that the privatised water companies are able to carry on increasing bills, increasing dividends to shareholders and paying multimillion-pound salaries to CEOs while this obscenity of sewage pouring into our rivers, seas and lakes continues?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to change the tone of the debate a little bit from the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and welcome the Minister’s comments about a strategy for hospital building that is based in reality and not on a fantasy programme that had no funding behind it. It is also good to hear that capital funding will be ringfenced. When Labour came into office, it promised to end sticking-plaster politics, but that seems to be exactly what it is offering to Torbay hospital: a small sticking plaster to hold together a gaping wound. Torbay hospital serves a critical role for my largely rural constituency of South Devon and faces immense pressure every single day. Nearly all of the hospital estate is currently unfit for purpose, yet under the Government’s timeline, construction on a rebuild is not due to begin until 2032. That means seven more years of staff working in outdated, inadequate conditions and patients receiving care in a facility that no longer meets the basic standards expected of a modern health service. The case for urgent and sustained investment could not be clearer. The total cost of eradicating the maintenance backlog at Torbay hospital now stands at £53.6 million—small beer compared with some colleagues’ constituencies. Of that, £4.6 million is needed to address high-risk issues, which are those, in the NHS’s own terms, that pose a direct threat to the safety of patients or the day-to-day functioning of the hospital. Nearly £1 in every £10 needed for repairs is to fix problems that are considered an urgent threat to health and safety. That is simply unacceptable in any modern healthcare system. Last year, the ear, nose and throat department was forced to cancel a full week of out-patient care after a sewage leak. The main tower of the hospital is literally being held together by scaffolding, which costs £1 million a week. Operating theatres lack adequate temperature control, and the pathology department, which plays a critical role in cancer diagnosis and other urgent care, is operating out of a rotting portacabin with holes in the walls. That temporary accommodation has been in place for more than 40 years. This hospital is operating at 98% capacity—far above safe levels. It is running at full tilt every day under conditions that make effective, safe care more and more difficult to provide. I have to give a huge shout-out to the incredible staff at Torbay hospital who keep that place going. The situation is not sustainable and nor should it be acceptable. The current Government’s decision to delay urgent repairs is not just a poor decision, but a false economy. We are spending so much money shoring up a hospital, when fixing it would cost less than holding it together with scaffolding. Keeping hospitals such as Torbay going with temporary fixes and emergency maintenance is far more expensive in the long term than investing in the proper infrastructure now. We need the Government to find innovative ways to finance critical repairs. Patients and staff in Torbay and across the country deserve better than another decade of waiting.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I represent that neighbouring constituency, and those in the largely rural area of South Devon will be severely threatened by the closure of out-of-hours coronary care in Torbay because somebody decided it would be a good idea to merge it with coronary care in Exeter, meaning a potential increase of up to 45 minutes in ambulance times for constituents from the south of my constituency to get to hospital. It is clearly going to put people in critical danger, and I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that we desperately need the integrated care board to reconsider this poorly thought-out decision.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree and will come on to that as well. As a new MP coming into this place, I realised that some issues would be pertinent only to my constituency and others would reflect similar casework elsewhere, but when I reached out to colleagues to see who else was dealing with casework about estate management and particularly FirstPort, I was shocked at the response I got. At least half my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches are supporting residents whose properties and estates are managed by FirstPort, and a dozen of us were in the room to question managing director Martin King when he responded to our invitation and came to Parliament to answer some of our more urgent questions. Following our invitation, he was also invited by Labour and Conservative MPs. He must feel very popular with so many invitations to Parliament, but it is rather a reflection of the desperation of so many of our constituents, who have exhausted all other avenues to raise complaints with FirstPort. Martin King’s company manages more than 310,000 homes across England, Wales and Scotland, so we are talking about at least half a million people dealing with just this one company. It is extremely disappointing to report that since the Lib Dem meeting, at which great things were promised, the only response we have received from the south-west regional operations director for the company has been one automatic email reply. It is not good enough.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered residential estate management companies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for listing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is good to see so many MPs back straight after the Easter break, ready to get stuck into the gritty issue of residential estate management companies, whose poor business practices have affected so many of our constituents. In that spirit, I come here today to address the Minister and to call for urgency from the Government in dealing with some serious issues, and for more regulation and new legislation. The issues raised repeatedly by constituents cause not just frustration, but in some cases serious distress. They cost significant amounts of money and sometimes lead to the loss of the entire value of a property investment at the point of resale. The situation for both leaseholders and freeholders has become so bad that such estates are now commonly referred to as “fleecehold” instead of leasehold. We note that the Government’s White Paper on leasehold reform, published last month, said that their legislation will make conversion to commonhold easier, but we feel that that will not go far enough. We look forward to seeing the legislation laid before the House. The previous Secretary of State—then the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—said that he was a “man in a hurry” to liberate leaseholders from unfair practices. He clearly was not in quite enough of a hurry, so I urge haste on the current Secretary of State. The Liberal Democrats have long called for reform for the 4.8 million existing leasehold properties in England. In fact, it has been a campaign of ours since Lloyd George introduced the people’s Budget in 1909. We will keep going until we see some change. We want leasehold tenures abolished for all properties, including flats, and we want all existing leaseholds converted into either freeholds or, where appropriate, commonholds. We are disappointed that existing leaseholders are not covered by the Government’s proposals and we urge a rethink.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I will be very quick as we are short of time. I thank all hon. Members for coming and sharing their experiences. It is clear that there is a strong feeling in the House that we need to act and that millions of people are being badly served by estate management companies. It is good to hear that looking at the behaviour of estate management companies, as well as the position of leaseholders and freeholders, is on the Government’s agenda. I appreciate that this is a complicated area of legislation; the Minister laid that out clearly. We are willing to work across the House to reach some sensible steps forward in legislation so that there can be redress for people who have until now been badly affected by estate management companies and so that the practice ends forthwith. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered residential estate management companies.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I absolutely agree. I will come on to that a little later. To get back to the core issue of estate management companies, every type of resident—leaseholders and freeholders—is affected by rogue practices. Perversely, the situation is often more difficult for freeholders, who do not have the same statutory rights as leaseholders to take challenges to a first-tier tribunal. Where the landlord of an estate is a housing association, no one has any right to go to tribunal if that landlord fails to manage the property properly. That, too, needs to be looked at, but it falls outside the scope of today’s debate. Whichever way we look at it, residents—whether housing association tenants, private tenants, owner-occupiers or retirees, living in a house or a flat—are being ignored, dismissed, intimidated and, frankly, fleeced by management companies that are not subject to any kind of regulation. We have all seen what happened in the water industry when private operators were allowed to focus solely on the profit line, ignoring their responsibilities to the environment while keeping shareholders happy. I believe we are looking at the next great scandal of our time: companies that may be owned by a shadowy collection of overseas investors eating up the smaller players in the UK market, building up their wealth and size so that they can ride roughshod over anyone who is tenacious enough to question their methods or ask for legitimate explanations of where their money has gone.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Lady says that the Government are in a hurry. We are looking forward to seeing the legislation come before the House. Out of the 1,100 people to whom I was referring, only 10 were happy with the way things were going with their management company. By anyone’s measure, that is a pretty shocking state of affairs. Respondents talked of shoddy workmanship, years of delays in getting repairs done, charges for gardening where no gardens exist, charges for new windows when windows are not replaced, charges for buildings insurance when there are no communal buildings, charges for new light bulbs when there is no communal lighting—it would be funny if it were not so serious. They talked of broken lifts, flooded car parks, leaking ceilings, including one that has been leaking for nine years, exorbitant insurance charges—the list goes on and on.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that it is an absolute disgrace. We must have some kind of legislation to bring these companies to book. In the UK, we have a rather strange situation whereby a new housing estate is built, but the council may not adopt the new area, so the builder has responsibility for roads, green spaces and communal areas and then passes that on to a third-party management company. Residents end up paying council tax on the one hand and estate management fees on the other. These charges can increase at any time, with no accountability or redress. The Competition and Markets Authority has recommended ending the private estates model, which has been used for 40% of all new builds across Britain in the last five years, and potentially more, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said. The CMA has recommended mandatory adoption by local councils of public amenities on new housing estates. Even when roads are accessible to the general public and green spaces can be enjoyed or used by anyone, residents can end up being responsible for their upkeep through service charges. The tenants of such developments pay both council tax and an estate management charge, yet they often receive a far worse service than those who live in adopted developments and are subject only to council tax, so I urge the Minister to consider ending the practice of shared ownership of public spaces for the vast majority of new developments. I would like to see a presumption that the shared areas around new developments are almost always adopted by the local authority where the development is standard in nature. Ahead of this debate, I asked the Chamber engagement team to engage with people who had signed relevant petitions. More than 1,100 people responded, one third of whom were freeholders. Ninety-four per cent said they were unhappy or very unhappy with the services provided by their management company; 94% said the service charges were unfair; and 94% said the transparency of what the service charges were for was completely inadequate.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member raises a very good point. The ownership of some of these companies is murky to say the least. Service charges are going up way beyond inflation, with no clear explanation of what the increases are for, and management companies refuse to give clear explanations when asked. At Camomile Lawn in Totnes in my constituency, residents were told that the annual contribution to a reserve fund had been increased from £2,000 to £8,000 a year—over 265%. Service charges were raised 23% based on a 10-year plan, but the plan was not shared with the residents, even when they asked. Accounting costs went up 55% in one year with no explanation given. This is a classic example of poor communication and a refusal to engage constructively with residents who want to understand the basis on which financial decisions are made. The lack of transparency around service charges has been debated in this House many times, not least in December 2023 on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. It is way past time that management companies were required to act responsibly, treat residents with respect and provide timely, straightforward and accessible information to all residents, regardless of their status as leaseholders or freeholders, and regardless of age. One resident said: “We feel like we are being taken advantage of because they see us as old.” That is a common reflection of those living in retirement villages. Too often, questions go unanswered, letters and phone calls are ignored, and justifiable requests for clarity and information on charges get rebuffed or given such poor responses that they do not mean anything. A delay in bill payment caused by asking a legitimate question often leads to a penalty charge for late payment—a sharp practice that clearly has to end. What is more, people are being forced to pay for the privilege of having asked those questions. One respondent said: “I received a bill of more than £2,000 for incurring charges trying to see where my money was being spent—£25 per email, £35 per phone call and solicitor charges on top. I felt completely robbed.” Older people often feel bullied by management companies—scared to question charges, confused by badly written statements and threatened with legal action if they are late paying charges because of wanting to question something. One resident said: “Our management company leverage their familiarity with legal processes and the vast financial resources at their disposal to bully and intimidate leaseholders.” This is not just about money; it is about how people feel living in a home that they may have put their life savings into buying. These homes are often sold as offering peace of mind, but one respondent said: “I’m drained, scared and mentally exhausted. It feels like I’m being financially and emotionally worn down for simply asking for basic transparency and fairness.” Another said: “My mental health has been seriously impacted by the state of our building. No one should be unhappy in their home or feel like they don’t want to go home.” When it comes time to sell, it is yet another tale of woe. Management companies do not respond to requests for information from solicitors; sellers are charged thousands of pounds for management packs that are required for the sale but take months to arrive; buyers get frustrated and pull out, and the price of the property is impacted. Meanwhile, service charges keep rising and ground rents keep being charged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said, people are trapped in their properties. Service charges can make it impossible to sell, as they have risen way beyond those charged on new properties in the same area. Dr Janet Richardson’s father bought a flat for £106,000 in 2006. In 2022, he had to move into a care home and she tried to sell the flat. Some months after putting it on the market she received an offer for £10,000 below the purchase price, which she accepted, but for months FirstPort did not answer requests for information, so eventually the buyer pulled out. The flat went back on the market at an even lower price, but still has not sold, three years after first being put on the market. Dr Richardson has now had to agree to sell the property through an assured buyer scheme and says there is likely to be nothing left once all the debts have been paid. She has shown me the figures—it has all gone. If FirstPort had done its job properly she would probably have sold the flat for a reasonable amount two years ago, but of course there is no offer of compensation from FirstPort. Finally, I come to the nightmare scenario that people face if they dare to attempt to get rid of FirstPort as the management company. Resident groups that have made repeated attempts to release themselves from FirstPort’s management have met resistance and obfuscation, forcing them to retain lawyers and pushing legal fees into the tens of thousands. Those cases have taken an emotional toll on residents, many of whom are elderly. One case in my constituency has been going on for three years and is still not resolved. South-west based Baker Estates has sacked FirstPort from a new estate at Dartington because of non-performance. The Duchy of Cornwall also sacked the company at the vast Nansledan estate in Newquay. It is more than clear that these companies are not doing their job. Their raison d’être is clearly not that of operating in the best interests of their residents. Estate management companies have had it too good for too long. As we look again in this place at leasehold properties, we must also look at the difficult situation for freeholders on privately managed estates. We need to bring forward leasehold reform as soon as possible. Does the Minister have a timeline for introducing the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill? Will the Government bring forward legislation to allow freeholders to challenge management charges and to take over the management of a development if they wish? Have the Government considered greater regulation of estate management companies, such as through an ombudsman, so that residents have some recourse when they encounter problems? If not, will they consider doing so? Will they introduce legislation to prevent management companies from charging residents for legal costs when they ask legitimate questions? Will they introduce legislation to professionalise the management of estates and buildings, with a basic level of service required and a mechanism for complaint and escalation that is easily accessible to residents? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I now leave it to other hon. Members to share experiences of the fleecehold nightmare.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Road Safety and Active Travel to School · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. Imagine being 14, 15 or 16 and being stuck in a rural village. For rural kids, bikes mean freedom. We have to make it easier to create cycle paths alongside dangerous rural roads, so that kids can have the freedom to travel independently. On that note, I would like—surprisingly—to do a shout-out for South West Water, which is seeking planning permission for a solar farm on the edge of Totnes. After 20 years of campaigning by local councillors and a very committed group of activists, South West Water has finally agreed to put a cycle path through that solar farm. We have not quite got it over the line yet, but I am putting on the record today that we really want to see it become a reality. It will link to Totnes a village that is just a few miles away, giving people there the ability to cycle into town safely, thereby cutting down on the amount of traffic coming into our small rural town. Such cycle routes are absolutely vital in rural areas, where the roads are extremely dangerous. They connect communities, allow people to avoid dangerous roads and provide a safe option for healthy active travel, which is so important for health and wellbeing as well as the environment. I would like to give a shout-out to Jon Oliverio, who lives in Torbay in my constituency. He is an absolute cycling champion and youth mentor, who has helped thousands of children and adults to gain the confidence to cycle safely and independently, inspiring lifelong habits, promoting wellbeing and sparking a love for cycling that has truly rippled out across families and communities. We need more people like Jon.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Young Offenders: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  It might not be about Staffordshire, but we also have young people in Devon. We have a case in my constituency of a young offender who has been arrested multiple times and put under a court order, but the presumption is against incarceration because of his age. Local residents tell me that there is a disaster waiting to happen—

• 22 Apr 2025 · Young Offenders: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We have a case in my constituency of a young offender, well below 16, who is causing havoc—he has been arrested many times—and is not complying with a court order. The assumption is against incarceration because of his age. Will the Minister explain what work the Government are doing to crack down on prolific offending by young people well below 16 who are causing stress and fear in their local communities?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Easter Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this Easter Adjournment debate. I would like to highlight an issue that continues to fill my inbox and, I am sure, the inboxes of colleagues across the House: dentistry. I hear from residents on an almost-daily basis about the challenges they face in accessing NHS dentistry. I hear stories of people who have been on a waiting list for years but still have not seen an NHS dentist, and people who are in pain but are unable to access treatment. I hear about pensioners being quoted thousands of pounds for a few fillings, and pensioners questioning why NHS dental treatment is not available to them despite their having paid national insurance contributions for most of their lives. I hear of children who need braces that their parents cannot afford, and children with special educational needs who need support with oral hygiene. Unfortunately, there is very little reassurance that I can give. Nine months after the general election, we are still waiting for meaningful progress to be made on this issue, despite Labour’s manifesto promise to tackle the immediate crisis. Statistics from last month show that 98.6% of people in the south-west who tried to make an NHS dental appointment in the last 28 days were unsuccessful. In Devon, there are simply not enough NHS dentists. No practices in my constituency are taking on new NHS patients. One practice was taken over by a new owner last June and still only has one dentist despite inheriting the patient list of three dentists. The Government’s promise to roll out 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments is welcome, but it is not a simple solution. NHS Devon is being asked to provide 25,000 more urgent care appointments than last year. While we agree that those appointments are much needed, it will be a huge challenge for the integrated care board to deliver. NHS Devon has already increased the minimum unit of dental activity rate beyond the nationally mandated uplift figure and invested £276,000 into the golden hello scheme to attract dentists to the area. However, it tells me that clear feedback from providers shows that the current remuneration is not sufficient to sustain baseline activity, let alone incentivise additional activity. There are concerns over the impact on routine dental activity and preventive care because of the higher rate being paid for urgent care appointments. One local dentist told me that the lack of NHS workers is down to not just money but the environment they work in. Private dentists can give more dedicated attention to patients, have to deal with less red tape and might experience a better work-life balance. However, the vast majority of NHS dentists are self-employed, so even those carrying out NHS work are at risk of litigation. If the risks are the same but the rewards are less, why would a dentist choose to carry out NHS work rather than private work? We need to look at how we can change the system to make NHS work more attractive. I have written to the Minister for Care asking what consideration has been given to allowing ICBs to use discretion when providing funding to projects that fall outside of contractual regulations, but I am yet to receive a response. I have also asked what plans are in place to allow ICBs to modify underperforming contracts, as I understand that the current system does not allow them to make changes. With an underspend of around £12 million in Devon, flexibility to change contracts is key. I am yet to receive a response on that either. Private dental care is unaffordable for many people. The cost of living crisis, coupled with recent welfare cuts under this Government, is only worsening outcomes. If we do not act now, the situation will continue to worsen and the implications will be even more widespread. Oral health is crucial, and oral health for children is even more important. We cannot wait any longer for this situation to be resolved.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s statement and the progress they are making on implementing recommendations from the Jay review, and I am deeply disappointed that the Conservatives have chosen to respond to the statement in this way and refuse to acknowledge any progress that the Government are making after years of inaction on the Conservatives’ part. As the Minister knows, before being elected to this House, I was the chief executive of Devon Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Services, an organisation that supports victims of child sexual abuse. I know how vital these support services are to rebuilding the lives of those who have been shattered by abuse, helping them to become adults who can live a more settled and fulfilling life. That organisation is dealing with a funding cut of around a third, and it has already had to close its helpline. I know that many other similar organisations across the country are facing a similar cliff edge due to funding cuts, as well as pressures from inflation and national insurance increases. I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of a doubling in funding for adult survivors of child sexual abuse. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that children who have been victims of child sexual exploitation and grooming can receive timely access to appropriate victim support and trauma-informed services?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this important debate and other hon. Members for their informed contributions. In summing up for the Liberal Democrats, I would like to echo some of the points made and consider the Government’s approach to negotiations with the EU. I thank the Minister for his visit to Brixham straight after the election, and for his interest in the industry. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) that we need to negotiate with a clear head and try not to allow the Brexit psychodrama to colour our positioning too much as we go into the negotiations. However, it is fair to point out that our fishing communities were badly let down by the previous Conservative Government, who spent years promising that Brexit would be a boon for British fishers. Perhaps in contrast to what was said by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the fishers in Brixham in my constituency clearly feel betrayed by the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. He toured the harbour and promised them the earth, then cast them adrift at the 11th hour, giving EU vessels virtually the same rights that they had under the common fisheries policy while burdening our own vessels with the millstone of veterinary certificates and border checks if they want to export their fish to their biggest market—the EU. In particular, our shellfish exporters have been incredibly badly affected by the red tape they now find themselves tied up in. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations described the post-Brexit TCA as a “near-complete capitulation to the demands of the EU”. The previous Government’s botched deal has undoubtedly harmed the UK fishing industry and caused great uncertainty, which is only increasing as the end of the transfer period approaches. As we have heard, it is not just fishers who are affected: it is the entire supply chain and the infrastructure that keeps our coastal communities vibrant. The Liberal Democrats hope that the current Government are entering into negotiations with our valuable fishing industry uppermost in their minds. One tangible benefit for the industry post Brexit was the ability for the UK to develop its own fisheries management measures. The evidence-led process, which is intended to be focused on long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability, is very different from the common fisheries policy, which remains top-down, bureaucratic and riven by political compromise, as many Members have said. However, it is vital that real-world scientific data is incorporated swiftly into stock management decisions to reflect what is actually happening on the ground—or rather, in the sea. The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a real issue in relation to data-deficient stocks, which is impacting the sustainability of fishing quotas. Bycatch rules are leading to fish being thrown back into the sea that will not survive, making a nonsense of sustainability objectives and impacting the livelihood of UK fishers who could land those fish. Small species of fish, which could be caught and offer economic benefit, are not properly accounted for in the quotas. The Government must consider appropriate ICES alternative advice scenarios, which deliver similar results for stock sustainability, to ensure that the socioeconomics have also been carefully considered. Let us take pollack, for instance. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, a formal review by ICES is due in June 2025. That advice must be fed quickly into management decisions. There is currently no management in place for the recreational fleet, which the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates to account for up to 50% of the total pollack catch. The zero total allowable catch for pollack severely impacts the under-10 metre fleet, which relies heavily on that stock. Catch data for the commercial and recreational sectors shows that the under-10 metre fleet is responsible for the lowest catches of pollack and the lowest impact on stock, yet that sector is impacted most by the current approach to management. I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives for the Minister to commit to introducing any new management of the pollack stock with immediate effect upon publication of the advice, rather than waiting until January 2026. Will the Minister also look again at recreational catch limits? Anecdotal evidence suggests that a substantial tonnage of fish—even fish with zero total allowable catch, such as pollack—is caught by boats claiming to be recreational. We also need to look again at bluefin tuna catch limits. The species is now becoming more abundant in our waters and, as we have heard, is regularly caught by recreational anglers. Members of the South Western Fish Producer Organisation, and those operating in and around Brixham, are concerned about the impact of recent annual quota negotiations on the highly valuable sole fishery in the western channel. The quota has been cut every year for the past three years. This year it was cut by 3%, despite the latest encouraging ICES advice identifying no immediate issues with the stock. The decision stemmed from a management decision made in 2023, as opposed to concerns about the stock itself. Catch limits unfairly target the inshore fleet of smaller boats. As we have heard, supertrawlers represent just 4% of UK fishing boats but account for 75% of all the fish landed, whereas the under-10 metre fleet accounts for just 1% of all fish landed. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that sustainability is at the heart of our post-Brexit fisheries strategy by reforming the fishing quota allocation system to reward the most sustainable fleet, and ensuring that all catch limits are set at sustainable levels. The example of Jof Hicks in the Isles of Scilly shows how imbalanced the regulations are in an industry that includes such a wide variance in vessel size and activity. We would radically overhaul how our quotas are allocated, prioritising support for small and medium-sized enterprises, revitalising local economies and better protecting our seas from environmental harm. In 2018, then shadow Environment Secretary, Sue Hayman, said that Ministers needed to take “urgent action to use the powers that they have domestically to redistribute fishing quotas to deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats.” Now that Baroness Hayman is a DEFRA Minister, are the Government still in favour of redistributing quotas to support smaller boats? We urge the Government to consider the roll-out of a multi-year quota system that would enable the industry to plan into the future, rather than adhere to the current annual cliff edge system. That would provide certainty for fishermen and the industry, and support the recovery of most of the fishing stock. However, we must also ensure that some flexibility is built into the arrangement, as climate change is affecting fish stocks. We can see from the arrival of more bluefin tuna in our waters that things are changing. It is vital that the industry is able to review catch limits as the marine environment changes. EU vessels still have free access to UK waters in the six-to-12 nautical mile zone, whereas we do not have the same access to EU waters. The NFFO has described that distribution as “radically inequitable”; I am sure we would all agree. Under proposals published last week, we heard that the EU’s €150 billion defence fund will consider purchasing British weapons only if the Prime Minister signs a security pact with Brussels—something France has tied to fishing rights. The President of the European Council has said that the EU will not let the question of fishing rights derail a pact with the UK on security and defence. Most Members present have echoed the point that we should not allow the defence of Europe and the security of our nation to be negotiated against the fishing industry. Will the Minister confirm that he will go out to bat as strongly for our fishing fleet in the negotiations as it looks like the French are going to? If not, will he at least try to get some of the red tape on exports to the EU removed? The Labour general election manifesto said: “We will seek to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks”. Almost nine months later, British exporters have passed the milestone of 1 million export health certificates issued since Brexit, every one of them representing time and money lost by British fishers and farmers. Will the Minister assure our hard-working constituents that the deal for 2026 and beyond will include an end to the requirement for export health certificates, so that whatever our fishers are able to catch they can sell to the widest possible market at the best possible price? Food security is national security. Protecting, promoting and supporting our fishing industry is vital to that security. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the questions raised and points made today.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Act: Family Support · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps he is taking to support families of patients who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983.