Caroline Voaden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There has been a lot of conversation this morning about the benefit to homeowners of installing solar panels on new builds. If solar panels were included on new social housing, we would also be helping those who face the greatest challenge in paying energy bills, which have gone up since the energy price cap rise. That is an added benefit in the cost of living crisis.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Marine Renewables Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. As the Member for South Devon, I am proud to represent a constituency with a long and rich history of maritime activity. From the bustling port of Brixham to the naval port of Dartmouth, the sea is very much part of our identity. It is for that reason that I am here today in firm support of the development of marine renewable energy. However, progress must be pursued in a way that respects and supports our fishing industry, ensuring that these two vital sectors can thrive side by side. The UK is a global leader in renewable energy, and marine renewables present a unique opportunity to further that leadership. The waters surrounding our islands hold enormous potential. Living on wet, windy islands, would it not be great if we could put some of that weather to good use? According to the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, tidal stream energy could provide up to 11.5 GW of capacity —following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, I think that figure is probably more now—which is equivalent to approximately 15% or more of the UK’s current electricity demand. Wave energy, though less mature technologically, offers additional capacity for long-term energy generation. These technologies, which include tidal stream turbines and oscillating wave surge converters, are capable of harnessing predictable and consistent energy, which is a crucial advantage over more intermittent renewable sources, like solar and wind. Investing in marine renewables is not just an environmental imperative. It is a huge economic opportunity for the UK. The sector, as we have heard, could create tens of thousands of jobs and attract billions in private investment. Projects such as those we have heard about in Orkney and Shetland demonstrate the potential for large-scale deployment, with capacity to generate a substantial element of our electricity once fully operational. The integration of marine renewables into our energy mix will not only diversify supply, but enhance our grid stability through predictable energy output. The economic benefits extend way beyond energy production. The sector could contribute billions to the UK economy annually, with supply chain opportunities for our coastal communities and the manufacturing sector alike. As we pursue this promising future, we must not lose sight of the vital role that our fishing industry plays. Brixham, one of the UK’s most productive fishing ports, landed a record-breaking £43.6 million-worth of seafood last year. That is not just an economic statistic—it represents the hard work of the fishing community and their contribution to our food security. As we navigate the transition to renewable energy, it is essential that the voices of our fishermen are heard and their expertise is valued. Marine renewable energy projects must be carefully planned to avoid disrupting fishing grounds and marine ecosystems. That requires advanced spatial planning tools, such as geographic information systems, to identify suitable sites for development that minimise conflict with established fishing zones and sensitive habitats. Consultation with the fishing community must be a fundamental part of the development process, not an afterthought. Fishermen know the waters better than anyone and can provide invaluable insights into where installations can co-exist happily with fishing activities. With good collaboration, we can ensure that marine renewables are located in areas that minimise conflict and maximise benefit. This approach is not just a matter of fairness. It is also a matter of practicality. Energy security and food security are two sides of the same coin. As we strive to achieve net zero and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we must also ensure that we are protecting our ability to feed the nation. The sea can provide both energy and food, but only if we manage it wisely and sustainably. It is worth noting that the development of marine renewables can also enhance marine biodiversity if designed thoughtfully, creating artificial reefs and habitats that benefit marine life. I must, though, express some concern about the lack of clear Governmental targets for marine renewables. Neither the previous Government nor the current Government have set—yet—any specific targets for the installation of wave or tidal energy. Although the Government have committed to achieving at least 95% low carbon generation by 2030, the December 2024 clean power action plan fails to set explicit goals for marine renewables. Instead, it relegates them to a potential long-term role in decarbonisation objectives. I believe that lack of ambition is a missed opportunity to capitalise on the UK’s vast marine resources and risks leaving us behind in the global race for renewable energy innovation. As an island nation, where the one thing we can rely on is the tide coming in and going out day after day, we should be doing more to capitalise on it. That seems more logical than shipping in solar energy from Morocco—although if we could ship in sunshine from Morocco, I would be up for that. I urge the Government to rectify the oversight by setting binding targets for the deployment of wave and tidal energy. Doing so would provide clarity and confidence for investors and developers, fostering rapid growth in this critical sector. Moreover, it would align marine renewables with the broader decarbonisation agenda, ensuring that they contribute meaningfully to our energy transition. I also call on the Government to provide long-term funding for research and development, such as the UK’s £20 million ringfenced budget for tidal stream innovation, and streamline the regulatory process to accelerate deployment. The Government must create a supportive framework for private investment, through mechanisms such as contracts for difference, to ensure market confidence, with a ringfenced budget for tidal and wave. The Government must also commit to robust engagement with the fishing industry to ensure that livelihoods are not sacrificed in the name of progress. There is room for everyone in this endeavour, but only if we take the time to plan and act responsibly. Marine renewable energy offers a bright and sustainable future for our coastal communities and the nation as a whole, so let us seize this brilliant opportunity but do so with care, collaboration and respect for all those who depend on the sea.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Foot and Mouth Disease · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that nobody in Devon will forget the horror of 2001, when half the farms in the county were affected by foot and mouth. Does the situation in Germany provide an impetus for the Minister to move forward with securing a veterinary deal with the European Union?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the theory of simplifying local government, but I am concerned about the pace at which the Government are trying to move. Devon has a very complicated landscape, with Labour-run cities, a Conservative-run county and many Liberal Democrat districts. Conflicting proposals have already been submitted to the Government by the districts and the county, so can the Minister explain how the Government will adjudicate between those conflicting proposals and decide which one will come out on top?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Children’s Social Media Accounts · Hansard source

  More

  No, I do not believe that goes far enough. There should be a legal right to access that data without having to go through any complaints process, particularly at a time when one is struggling with the worst bereavement imaginable. The petition seeks to address that gap in law and ensure that, in the tragic event of a child’s death, parents have the right to access their child’s account to gain closure, to preserve memories and to ensure that harmful content is removed. I support the addition of Jools’ law into the Online Safety Act, and I urge the Government to do whatever they can to apply it retrospectively for those who have campaigned on this issue. What Ellen’s family have been through is the absolute worst imaginable, but tens of thousands of families up and down the country are struggling with the impact of social media on their children and teenagers. Those children are addicted to their screens because of the wicked algorithms that lure them in; cowed by bullies who can intimidate them in their own bedrooms late at night; struggling with their body image because they do not look like the influencers they watch; depressed because their lives do not resemble the doctored, airbrushed Instagram image of perfection; and brainwashed by influencers who spew toxic messages through their pages. The damaging impact of social media on our children is vast. Medical professionals from all disciplines tell us regularly of the harms children are experiencing from hour after hour spent glued to a screen. Their physical health is damaged, their mental health even more so, and even their ability to communicate and socialise with other humans is changing.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Children’s Social Media Accounts · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. What is becoming obvious is the impact of children being on their phones late at night, which affects their sleep—even that has a knock-on effect on how well they can operate. Parents across my South Devon constituency are desperate to protect their children, but they are overwhelmed by the digital world and the power it has over young people. They need legislation to empower and support them. The NSPCC reports that over 60% of young people have encountered online bullying. That is a staggering number, highlighting the need for more robust protections from us for children in the digital space. It is clear that we need more robust protection, and it is incumbent on us as lawmakers to protect children as we do from other harms such as tobacco and alcohol. It may be right that parents should not have access to their teenager’s social media because of privacy reasons and to protect children’s ability to seek support online, but that makes it even more important and urgent that social media companies should be required and obliged to take responsibility for watertight age verification, and that we should look seriously at raising the age of access to some social media platforms to 16. I urge the Government to work with social media companies and other stakeholders to create a clear and respectful framework that allows parents access to their child’s social media accounts after a death with no questions asked. This is not about data protection; this is about ensuring that families can concentrate on grieving and healing rather than going into battle against the world’s tech giants. It is abominable that any bereaved parent should have to do what Ellen and other campaigners are doing. I urge the Minister to legislate so that that does not happen again. I commend the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to the House and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central for introducing it.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Children’s Social Media Accounts · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to be able to speak in this debate, which was prompted by Ellen Roome’s petition, although I am extremely sorry that any of us needs to be here at all. I pay tribute to Ellen and all the other families in the Bereaved Families for Online Safety network for their tireless campaigning. A week before Christmas, I sat in a Committee Room with Ellen and senior representatives from all the major tech firms, including Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snap. One conversation that morning will stay with me for a very long time—a conversation that I can describe only as harrowing, shocking and deeply depressing. Sitting alongside two other heartbroken parents who have also lost their children because of online harms, Ellen confronted the representatives of TikTok and Instagram, pleading with them to release information that could give her some peace of mind following the death of her beloved son, Jools. There can be nothing worse for a parent than losing a child, but to lose a child and not understand how or why must compound that agony. Ellen does not know why Jools died. Unlike many other children and young people, he was not being bullied online and did not seem to have any mental health issues. All Ellen wants is to find out what her son was looking at online before he died; it might shed some light on this tragedy that has clearly caused immeasurable grief. It was infuriating to listen to the tech firms’ pathetic excuses that morning about why they could not or would not release the data that Ellen is asking for. There was—there is—no good reason not to release that data. Jools is no longer with us, so claiming data protection seems frankly pointless. TikTok said that it would be fined for releasing the data, but my question is: by whom? Who is going to press charges against a global tech company for supporting the request of a bereaved mother? Who in their right mind would think that a court case on that point would help anyone? As we have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), some social companies have behaved differently in such cases. It is quite clear, however, why some will not agree to release that data: it is a pathetic attempt to avoid the potential bad publicity that will follow if it becomes clear that Jools’ short life ended after taking part in a social media challenge, which is one possibility. It is about protecting the reputation of those social media companies. It is about the accountants who fear the lawsuits. In short, I suggest it is about money. The absence of humanity, care and compassion in that room before Christmas was palpable and I applaud Ellen for having the courage to come back here today. I can see no reason why tech companies cannot immediately release the data that these devastated parents are asking for. I fully support Ellen and all the other parents in their attempts to get Jools’ law on the statute books. In the meantime, I plead with Instagram and TikTok to not wait for a legal challenge, but just release the data: find your inner human and do something decent; imagine if it were your child. Under UK law we have clear, legal processes for handling physical estates after death. It is high time that we establish clear protocols for the digital estates that are left behind, particularly the digital estates left by young people. The law must catch up with the world we are living in. Current provisions, such as Facebook’s legacy contact feature, are not sufficient, because they rely on a child making a decision while they are still alive, often without fully understanding the implications, as has been mentioned. It is also quite possible that, if children were asked whether their parents could have full access to all of their digital online life in the event of their death, they would say no. Without formal, legal access arrangements, parents are left with no way of viewing their children’s account.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A fantastic organisation in my South Devon constituency called Child Assault Prevention, which I worked with when I worked for Devon Rape Crisis, had to close its doors two years ago because its funding was cut by the previous Government. It was doing vital work with primary school children, teaching them about the dangers of sexual assault and how to avoid it. I would welcome the Government looking at reinstating funding to such organisations that are working with young children in this sensitive area.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the House staff, a very merry Christmas. Following on from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), next year I will be taking part in a strictly dancing competition for my local Rowcroft Hospice. However, I am pretty sure that, even if all the Members in this House sponsored me, I would not be able to raise the £225,000 needed by Rowcroft to cover the additional national insurance contribution payments that it will have to make. Will this extra funding, which is very welcome, be additional funding, or will it be just enough to cover the extra costs that have been imposed on the hospice sector through the increase in national insurance contributions in the recent Budget?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Large areas of rural South Hams in my constituency of South Devon are still struggling with almost prehistoric broadband speeds. The company that was tasked with rolling out full-fibre broadband was astonishingly allowed to walk away from its contract after building the easy urban bits, leaving all the hard-to-reach areas behind. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how the Government can underwrite the roll-out of high-speed broadband in areas where it is not commercially viable, because broadband is as important to the rural economy as electricity?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s statement and their attention to local government finances. Delivering services in large, dispersed rural areas such as mine in South Devon is challenging and costly. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that rural local authorities will be allocated additional funding to manage the extra cost of delivering services across areas such as mine?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Community Pharmacies: Devon and the South-west · Hansard source

  More

  Pharmacies in two of the major GP surgeries in my constituency, Leatside in Totnes and Compass House in Brixham, have closed in the past year because the private operators could not make a profit. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is urgent that we revise the funding model for prescriptions so that pharmacies, particularly in GP surgeries, can survive?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentioned the cryptosporidium incident in May in Brixham in my constituency, where 17,000 houses were affected by contaminated water. A boil water notice was enforced for eight weeks, and many of my constituents are still suffering from that. I say to the Minister that, when the Drinking Water Inspectorate reports next year, I hope the water company will be forced to pay proper compensation, because it would appear that its negligence and not maintaining its facilities over the past decades was possibly one of the causes of the contamination.

• 16 Dec 2024 · English Devolution · Hansard source

  More

  Top-down reorganisation of a failing council such as Conservative-run Devon county council is a bit like shuffling the deck chairs on a sinking ship. We know that years of chronic underfunding have made it impossible for councils to fulfil their obligations, so I welcome the multi-year funding settlement. However, creating larger regional authorities does not devolve power; it shifts power and responsibility away from local communities to a distant, higher-tier authority that will feel remote to towns and parishes in places such as Devon. We must have the opportunity in May to pass our verdict on Conservative-run Devon county council, which has been failing our most vulnerable children for over a decade. Will the Minister assure me that those elections will go ahead as planned in 2025?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Primary School Breakfast Clubs: Impact · Hansard source

  More

  While the children’s wellbeing Bill proposes statutory breakfast programmes, research from the Food Foundation shows that such clubs are more likely to benefit wealthier families because of the convenience that they offer working parents. By contrast, offering children free school lunches is known to help iron out inequalities. Some 800,000 children in poverty are ineligible for free school meals, and more than 200,000 eligible children are not registered. Does the Secretary of State agree that expanding school lunches, and implementing auto-enrolment for free school meals for all children, would be an effective and equitable approach to tackling food insecurity and supporting our children’s health and academic performance?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Family Farming in Devon · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for securing this important debate, and for his lyrical introduction to the subject. It is clear from all hon. Members who have contributed that much is at stake for our rural economy. In Devon, family farms are an essential part of our community and the economy, as they are elsewhere—I refer to the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who talked of their areas. In Devon, farms cover 1.2 million acres of land and employ more than 20,000 people. Agriculture is the backbone of our local economy. From grazing livestock to growing crops, Devon’s farmers produce not just food but the character of our rural landscape. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock spoke of the preciousness of our farms and the decades of heritage, of which we are rightly proud. However, the Government’s changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief are concerning. The Government claim that 73% of farms will be unaffected by the changes, but as the NFU has pointed out, those figures are based on historical claims and fail to account for the current state of the agricultural sector. For example, 66% of farms in England have a net value of more than £1 million, and 42% of farms are larger than 50 acres, so many will now be above the £1 million threshold. The burden that that will place on farmers cannot be overstated, especially given the other financial pressures that they have faced over the past few years. They are struggling with skyrocketing costs, since energy and feed prices have risen due to the invasion of Ukraine. Many are still reeling from the Conservatives’ botched trade deals, which have placed further stress on the farming community. The recent increase in national insurance contributions and the impending carbon tax on fertiliser further compounds the challenges. I will read some quotations from local farmers who we surveyed, 86% of whom say they will be hit by the tax, while 50% of those farms are not owned by a couple, so they already lose out on a chunk of the potential tax relief: “We are now in process of winding down all investment and food production on this farm in response to the budget. Producing food is difficult and carries lots of financial risk—we will keep farming but at a much lower level and look to pass the farm on early as lifetime transfer. Doesn’t sound like ‘growth’ to me…Our farming income for the last 2 financial years has been a loss (mainly due to weather). It feels so hard. This policy just knocks the confidence out…The policy as it currently stands will halve food production in a generation…If this rule stays what is the point of investing in your farm to improve efficiency. All our input costs are going to increase through labour costs and taxes…Through previous governments, we’ve been encouraged to diversify in order to augment our farm income and stay afloat. Now we feel we’ll be penalised for this as we have added value to our farm which will now be liable for Inheritance tax…I feel completely let down and saddened. This will completely destroy the rural community.” Farmers will be forced to sell land—the very tool by which they produce food and earn a living—that has been in their families for generations— [ Interruption. ] The Minister is shaking his head, but every single farmer I have spoken to says that that is the case. The idea that neighbouring or tenant farmers will just buy up the land is a fantasy. Most will not be able to afford it, and land may well end up being bought by non-farming companies with no interest in food production and used instead for carbon offsetting or potential development. One family now face the prospect of having to sell at least a quarter of their assets, including tractors, sheep and land, just to pay the tax. They tell me that, rather than investing and growing their business, they are now having to wind down their farm with a view to reducing their future tax liabilities. That is a deeply worrying trend, as it could lead to a broad contraction of the sector, harming not just farmers but the entire agricultural industry. The Liberal Democrat position is clear: the tax will disproportionately harm the farming community, and we call for the Government to rethink it. But it is not just farmers. The impact on rural businesses that rely on the farming economy, such as vets, agricultural merchants and machinery suppliers, will be severe. Local suppliers of agricultural machinery and heavy equipment already face a significant increase in costs due to national insurance changes. Those businesses are vital to the farming economy. Again, a contraction of the sector will have a ripple effect throughout the entire rural economy. It is crucial to note that the DEFRA budget for day-to-day spending is set to drop by 1.9% over the next two years, and the pause on capital grants is yet another worry, particularly for farmers who are doing their best to comply with environmental measures such as safe slurry storage. If the grants are not available to do that work, that makes sustainable farming even harder to achieve. The sustainable farming incentive, which should provide support to farmers, has proven unworkable for many, and the transition from basic payments to ELMs has been complicated and unnecessarily slow—an indication of the lack of foresight and planning by the previous Government to prepare for a potential withdrawal from the EU. Even though I am no fan of Brexit, what could have given a real boost to both British agriculture and the environment has instead been a bureaucratic mess and a clear sign of how rural communities are so often the lowest priority for Government. Talking of environmental payments, I want to take a quick moment to underline how important it is for the Government to make the schemes work. Unless we restore the health of our soils and the biodiversity that has been decimated across the UK, our farmers will find it harder and harder to produce quality food. If we are to mitigate flooding, increase water quality and combat carbon emissions, we simply must do this work. As the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) have mentioned, that is really important on Dartmoor, a small part of which also falls in my constituency. This will mean a complex conversation about farming, stocking levels and sites of special scientific interest. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try to find solutions. Environmental payments are fundamental to the future of good food production. Lower inputs are good for everyone—for nature and the farmer’s back pocket. It is not an either/or—farming or the environment. We simply have to make this work. Finally, I share something deeply troubling, which I heard from farmers in my constituency when they came to Westminster last week. Some talked about the need to hide shotguns in order to prevent older owners of the family farm from taking their own lives before the inheritance tax changes come into force. They now feel that they are worth more dead than alive because of the burden those taxes would place on their families. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth also touched on that topic. We know that poor mental health is already rife in the farming community, and the sudden tax change has placed an added pressure, which could prove fatal. No farmer should ever feel that their legacy and livelihood are so threatened that it would drive them to such despair. In response to those challenges, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a £1 billion increase in the farming budget, and for the Government to reverse their decision on agricultural property relief. We understand the importance of ensuring that family farms can continue to operate and thrive. Family farms are not only vital for our food security and the preservation of our rural environment, but central to the history and heritage of our country. The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for the future of family farming, to ensure that our rural communities thrive, and to ensure that farmers’ voices are heard loud and clear in Westminster.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Family Farming in Devon · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to ask the Minister whether the Treasury consulted DEFRA on the tax change before deciding to go ahead with it in the Budget.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Children and Bereavement · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for opening the debate. I would like to acknowledge all the people who have signed the petition, and Mark and John for all their work—it is good to see them in the Public Gallery. I speak as someone who has, unfortunately, very personal experience of the issue we are debating today. My husband, 22 years ago, was diagnosed with terminal cancer, when my daughter was two and our baby was just five months old. He died a year later, a week before Ellie’s fourth birthday, when Laura was just 17 months old. They are now brilliant young women, and I am extremely proud of them. But it has been a long journey, and I can say from the bottom of my heart that grief lasts a lifetime. Bereavement issues come and go and change as the children grow up. The grief is quite strange when you are three; you don’t know where daddy has gone. When you are 17 months old, you cannot even speak. I think she could just about say “Daddy”; she was babbling a bit. It is very difficult to explain to a child of that age, so the other parent has to explain again and again, at different stages of life, as the children grow up. One thing we read about in books, which is true, is that for bereaved children it is an issue that keeps coming back. They will be okay for a few years and then they will move school and suddenly it starts all over again. I remember that when both my girls started secondary school there was a conversation: “What do I say? Do I go in and say on day one, ‘Oh, my dad’s dead,’ or do I keep it quiet?” I remarried many years later, and then there was another question: “Do I call him Stuart or do I just say to my friends that he’s dad?” The girls just used to refer to us as “Our parents”, because that was easier. They did not want to have to keep explaining. Retelling the story at school, over and over again, was very difficult. Ellie started school six months after her dad died. I had some brilliant friends who came to the house on day one of school, and we all went together because I knew she would be one of the only kids there who did not have mum and dad at the school gate on day one. It was like that every time: at every school carol concert, every play, every parents’ evening, every sports day, for years, there was a feeling that there should have been someone else there. One thing that was really hard was that I felt every year that I had to tell the class teacher; it was not a whole-school experience, so I had to keep retelling and re-explaining. When children go to secondary school and have lots of different classes with lots of different teachers, it is really quite something that, if things are difficult, we have to keep explaining it again and again. The petition is so important. Perhaps things have changed a bit in the last 21 years, but the fact that no national data is collected is a sign that we still have not got to grips with this issue. The Childhood Bereavement Network estimates that more than 46,000 children in the UK experience the death of a parent every year. That is 127 children who are going through this every single day. We collect data on so many aspects of children’s lives, from school performance to health statistics, and even the number of children affected by divorce, but when it comes to bereavement children are invisible in terms of policy, planning and support, and that absolutely has to change. Bereavement is one of the most difficult experiences that any child can face, yet we have no clear plan or pathway to support children. We know that the impact of bereavement is lifelong and can present emotional and psychological challenges. I remember phoning Winston’s Wish more than once as a parent to ask for some advice when things were kicking off and not going very well, and that organisation was absolutely brilliant. Shortly after—about a year after—Nick died, we joined Widowed and Young, and I eventually went on to chair Widowed and Young for a couple of years. It is an absolutely brilliant organisation and I could not have survived without it. We used to go away for weekends with WAY. I had lots of friends who all had small kids, and I remember the kids were chattering away in the back of the car one day and one of them said to the other, “What’s a brain haemorrhage?”, and the other one explained. For them, it was so normal that all their dads had died. They just talked about it. It was so important for them to be able to connect with other children who had experienced the same thing and they felt able to talk to. Yet at school, it was not part of the conversation. Their friends did not know how to talk about it; they did not really understand. My daughters have often said, “Oh, my friends never mention it; they never talk about it.” It is just brushed under the carpet because they feel awkward. Education about this issue should be on the curriculum. We do not talk about death enough in this country. We have talked about it a lot in this House over the last couple of weeks, but Friday’s debate was also an indication that we really do not have these conversations in Britain. We feel awkward about it, and it is really important that death becomes a much more normal thing to discuss. I am going all over the place, but I will go back to the issue of data, which I have written down. If registrars were required to ask about the number of dependent children at the point when a death is registered, we could at least begin to understand the true scale of the issue. Local authorities could then use that data to make informed decisions about the resources required to support grieving families in their area. Nationally, it would help to make the case for a co-ordinated response to childhood bereavement and ensure that bereaved children get the support they need. Registrars could also signpost people to useful organisations if they knew there were children involved. Believe me, a bereaved parent needs all the help they can get, and knowing there are people out there who understand is really important. The collection of data would also identify children who are not receiving support and would allow local services to monitor whether the services available are meeting the needs of bereaved children, and whether enough children are receiving the help they need. It would also allow us to ask the important question: are our systems reaching these children, and are they getting the right kind of help? Without that data, we cannot ensure that our services meet the scale of the need. On educating children, we cannot expect them to process such a significant loss on their own. We also cannot expect teachers to navigate these issues without proper training and support. There are organisations out there. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, a lot of this stuff has already been done, and the resources are there to support teachers. By giving children a space to understand death—what it is, what it means and what it is all about—we provide an opportunity for a bereaved child not to feel quite so alone and different. Children need to be able to express their grief and to be supported in doing so, and teachers need to feel empowered to address this difficult subject, to ensure that grieving children do not feel isolated or misunderstood. If such education were part of the curriculum, we could ensure that teachers and support staff have the tools and knowledge they need to support children at the most difficult time in their lives. Grieving children need to feel safe, understood and supported. The impact of losing a parent can be devastating; it affects every aspect of a child’s life for a lifetime. Without understanding the scale of the issue, and without having the right data and systems in place, we are leaving bereaved children to navigate this experience with little support, and leaving their parents to do a really difficult job on their own, without the wider support network they need. It is time that we recognised the needs of bereaved children. I urge the Minister to see what we can do, as fast as we can do it, so that more children get the support they need.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Children and Bereavement · Hansard source

  More

  I add my voice to the calls to extend bereavement support payments. I was very lucky—well, not lucky—because I was bereaved before those changes were made, and I had bereavement support payments for quite a long time. I want to say a couple of things on that. The reason why someone gets bereavement support payments is that their partner who has died has paid national insurance contributions. My husband spent 20 years paying national insurance contributions, and he would never get a pension. To get some kind of payment as a bereaved parent is only just, because the state will never pay out that pension later on. As I have previously said, grief does not just stop after 18 months. A bereaved parent of young children is left to pick up the pieces, look after their children and go back to work, because they have lost an income—quite often the main income of the family. It is important for the state of the NHS, our economy and everything else that a bereaved parent is as balanced and stable as possible so that their children can remain balanced and stable. It is good for the family and society as a whole. The more help we can give a parent—perhaps to work part time, so that they can be more available to their bereaved children—the better. Sorry, that was too long; excuse me, Mrs Harris.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talked about the importance of encouraging young people into the industry. That is important for us all, wherever we are. It is clear for us all to see that our fishing communities were deeply let down by the previous Conservative Government, and that the promises made to them in the run-up to Brexit have been badly broken. Instead of the “sea of opportunity”—which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) optimistically said he thought was possible—the industry has been cast adrift, struggling with increased bureaucracy, reduced market access and rising costs. We believe fishing communities deserve better. As we enter this annual negotiation period and approach the end of the transition period in 2026, we must learn from the failures of the past and ensure that the mistakes of the terrible, botched Brexit deal are not repeated. As many Members have said, we need multi-annual decision making to give the industry more long-term stability. Negotiations on fishing quotas must be conducted transparently and be based on the best science available, with fishing communities at the table helping to shape the decisions that will profoundly affect their livelihoods. The Liberal Democrats want a fair deal for fishers—one that sets realistic catch limits, cuts unnecessary bureaucracy, invests in infrastructure and creates opportunities for coastal communities to thrive both on and off the water. First, we need to tackle the avalanche of red tape that has engulfed the industry for the last few years. The increased paperwork for customs declarations, export processes and landing requirements has created delays, raised costs and caused untold frustration, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) described. Driving from Cornwall to Dover with a piece of paper to comply with an export requirement is utter madness in 2024. Having to get a qualified vet to personally sign 17 different pieces of paper for one export consignment is also ludicrous, yet that is the reality for Offshore Shellfish, a high-quality mussel farm off the Devon coast—I have written here, “which I had the pleasure of visiting on a very windy day in September”, but I am not sure that it was all pleasure, because it was quite choppy. Mussels cannot afford to be held up by red tape; speed is key when exporting shellfish. We have to cut down on the endless forms that companies are being forced to fill in.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing today’s debate on the UK fishing industry. He has been a steadfast supporter of the UK’s fishing communities for many years. I echo his words and those of many others in the debate who have paid tribute to all those who have died at sea, and to the valuable work of the RNLI. Fishing is a subject of huge importance to us Liberal Democrats, not only because of the industry’s economic significance but because of its cultural heritage, its role in sustaining coastal communities and its relationship with the health of our seas. We have heard today from communities from all around the UK’s coastline, and about many different sectors of this age-old industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about resolving the visa issue for fishers, both within and outside the 12-mile zone, which many others referred to as well. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) spoke about the importance of fish as a low-carbon, high-protein food source of which we should be consuming more, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) spoke passionately about how we can promote fish and seafood throughout the food chain, and about her brilliant local food-processing industry up in Grimsby. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) referred beautifully to Cornwall’s proud fishing heritage, and particularly the Fal oysters. On that point, while I have him in the room, I ask the Minister again to reconsider his decision to classify Pacific oysters as an invasive species. They are heading our way anyway—they are going to be here whether we like it or not—so I do not believe that decision makes sense any longer. After all, sheep were once not a native species in the UK; things do change. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—did I get that right?