Graham Stuart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have only closely scrutinised the Bill today, so I am just bringing myself up to date on this. It appears to give the Secretary of State the power to ban any product he wishes for whatever reason. We make law in this place not for when we are dealing with a Minister of the moral calibre of the right hon. Gentleman, but on the basis that we might have someone who lacks such qualities; that is who we legislate for. Is it true that this Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to ban literally any product, and that all that would have to be done is to notify this House?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will press on a little, but I may come back to the hon. Lady. I understand that, following the loveless landslide that brought the Government to power, the Government, and Government Members, have done an about-face. They now delight in more powers for the Executive, so much so that the Bill’s very first subsection gives the same Secretary of State I just referenced the power to make regulations anywhere in the UK, without consulting Parliaments in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or Stormont, on more or less anything he likes. I was so pleased that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised the devolution question. I was a Minister for eight years, and such is the complexity of the devolution settlement now that even with thousands of civil servants working on primary legislation, Ministers can come to the House and suddenly it gets pointed out to them that they are in breach of the Sewel convention and ignoring how Northern Ireland has a slightly different environmental or energy regulatory environment from Scotland or Wales. They find that the situation is more complex than they first thought. Now, we are giving powers to Ministers who will not have to go through any of that rigmarole. They will not get to find out how they are trampling on the devolution settlement, and that is a serious issue. We on the Opposition Benches can make the arguments, but what we must really do is engage Government Members and get them to recognise that they are not here just to back the Government. They need to question these things, and not just ask whether the powers could be used for good. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a brilliant speech with examples of the speeding up and pace of technological change—I think he spoke about the drones in Ukraine. Even though Opposition Members may maintain that the system that we had worked perfectly well, he made the case that perhaps we need something speedier going forward, and I can see that he made a strong argument. None the less, is the answer just to hand to Ministers, in this skeleton Bill, all the powers in the world? I suggest that it is not. I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are decent people, and I hope that we will see, as the legislation proceeds through this House, ways to curb some of the powers while allowing us to have a regulatory system that can speedily respond to inappropriate products. None of us wants to see parliamentary pride getting in the way of an effective system; we have to find a way of making things work. This Bill, however, goes too far the other way. That is why the cross-party experts on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have looked at it and said that they do not feel that the case has been made to justify such massive powers. Some parallels were raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and I think it is fair enough to say, “Look at the way that Henry VIII powers and delegated powers were taken by the Government in the last Parliament.” Quite rightly, people questioned it, but that was about implementing Brexit; it really was something enormous that had to be done at a reasonable speed. Those of us involved were cognisant of the fact that we did not want it to set a precedent; we did not want Government to take the unique conditions of implementing Brexit and take it as a new way of governing. To the comment from the hon. Member for Erewash about rebuilding the world that the ancient Egyptians had, they were very good at centralising authority and I do not think that that is an entirely good thing. That is exactly what the Bill does, so I agree with him on that. I am sure the Secretary of State is an excellent judge of things such as the safe operation of a laptop, say, for a trainee solicitor, but he will now have the power to regulate any product for sale in the UK on the basis of safety or functionality. The immense power given to him will allow him to decide what is and is not sold in the UK, without consulting this place and by merely providing a written statement. The Bill goes further, with Ministers acquiring the power to give inspectors the right to enter somebody’s home to seize any product that the Minister has decided, on the basis of non-compliance. That can be imposed on manufacturers, marketers, installers, importers or people who run an online marketplace, the definition of which, by the way, can be altered on a ministerial whim and at any point. We have heard about dangerous and often unpopular electric bikes and scooters, but the powers in the Bill allow a future Secretary of State—we have had some eccentric ones in the past—to decide to ban bicycles because he considers them to be dangerous. He might look at the figures on that. After publishing a statement, he could instruct anyone he likes to enter the house of every bike owner and every bike shop to seize every bike in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State could effectively end cycling in the UK without coming to Parliament. He could create legions of cycle inspectors who could enter people’s homes or businesses and seize their property before disposing of it. And the Government want to hide this act under the innocuous name of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. It is a massive power to give to the Secretary of State. I say this to the many new Labour Members: I am not very keen on any Government, even the one of which I was a member. It was Lord Acton who said: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Well, there is an element of absolute power in this Bill, but we have an opportunity both to recognise the powerful case made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield for an appropriate system and by his colleagues talking about different challenges, and to make sure that we limit and reduce those powers as the Bill goes through the House. I know that my cycle example is a little extreme, but it is also true. It would not require the Government to return to this House; they would be able to do it. The Prime Minister has told us that the No. 1 mission of this Government is growth, yet his Ministers, not satisfied with taking the fastest growing economy in the entire G7 and bringing it to a shuddering halt, have introduced what may be the most tediously named but potentially dangerous Bill in the history of Parliament. We can look at what the Government have done for business so far. They have ended the rate relief for hospitality, made part-time workers too expensive to hire, hiked the cost of employing people through next week’s jobs tax, strengthened the trade unions and made it impossible to fire new workers. I would not want to exaggerate this Bill’s role, but in a crowded field, it takes the biscuit in many ways. Businesses are struggling to cope with all these things already, and now we will have greater business uncertainty caused by the fact that Ministers can, on a whim, choose which products can and cannot be sold. This will provide the exact opposite of the certainty that Labour Members suggested the Bill could bring, in a way that has no logic behind it.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Gentleman give a single instance of a Government at any time in the past decade not being able to take action on a seriously risky product? I cannot think of one.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  And the last.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he, like me, hope that the Liberal Democrats, despite their hobby-horse love of the EU, do not allow the EU flavouring of the Bill to blind them to the frankly illiberal Executive-enhancing, legislature-diminishing aspect of the Bill? If they genuinely aspire to being His Majesty’s Opposition, they will join us this evening in voting against Second Reading.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I shall survive. Given the time that she has spent in this House, I am surprised that, like some newer Members, she may have been taken in by the Government’s wording. The Bill gives Ministers such blanket powers. Sure, they can align more with EU regulation, as she desires; equally, another Government or Minister could go the opposite way and do all the damage she is talking about—needlessly differing from Europe purely out of ideology—and the House would have no say in it. Surely, the hon. Lady must be more like the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and share with her colleagues the need to restrict Ministers’ powers.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had excellent speeches from across the House. I think the whole House agreed on the brilliance of the speech made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), and—perhaps I would say this—great speeches have come from Opposition Members in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) got to the heart and the nub of the critique of the Bill. We have also heard many good speeches, including the last one, about issues of product safety and the need to have a system that can keep up. The speech that addressed both that issue and whether the Bill is appropriate—it was the outstanding speech by a Government Member—was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). He did not like my praise of his speech in so far as it disparaged in any way anybody else’s, but he faced up to the issues directly. He did not just say, “Well, there are these problems with products and product safety, and here’s a Bill that could do something about it.” He dealt with the fact that the Bill gives enormous power to Ministers. As colleagues across the House have pointed out, the purpose of this honourable House is to hold the Executive’s feet to the fire, hold them to account and hold them in check, and ensure that we champion the will of the people who sent us here. As has been said, not only the Minister but, back in 2018, the Secretary of State warned the House that “the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive”. –– [ Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.] The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is not here, so I will try to be more polite than I would have been if she was, but if Brexit derangement syndrome is a condition, it is one that affects not only people who are maniacally in favour of Brexit, but those who seem unable to think rationally from the other side. The point that I tried to make to the hon. Lady in an intervention—I would make it again—is that giving such untrammelled power to Ministers is frightening, regardless of whether we prefer closer alignment with the EU. She said that we need common-sense alignment, but these powers would allow a super-ideological future Minister to come in and seek, entirely for ideological reasons, to stop any alignment with the most sensible of EU regulations purely to have some Brexit difference. That makes no sense whatsoever.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It will be brief. Forget the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; what about the Secretary of State’s colleague, Lord Leong? He said in the House of Lords that he did not think the Bill was right. In what way does it need to be improved? Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the extent of these powers? Even from this short debate, it is clear how wide-ranging and over the top they are.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  They will not. The Secretary of State—not the current wonderful, benign, insightful and genial Secretary of State, but a future rather less palatable one—could wake up one day and impose new regulations on business that effectively strangle and bring red tape to every business in the land. Remember how close we were in 2017 to having a Government that would have been very different from the one that is opposite us today, or indeed from the Conservatives. Why are the Government doing this? I cannot look into a man’s soul, but I have an idea, because Labour spent years fighting the UK’s attempts to remove the burden of regulation on business after we left the EU. At every turn, Labour tried to cling to nurse rather than let businesses innovate and sell their goods. This Government are seeking to undermine and erode the freedoms we have won over the last few years. Indeed, that is in black and white in the Bill. The Secretary of State may reimpose EU law on products without the requirement to come to this place and ask our permission to do so. I am not saying that this is the worst thing the Government have done. As I have said, there is quite a packed list, including cutting the winter fuel payment for pensioners, the farm tax, the jobs tax, imposing stamp duty on first-time buyers, which comes in, I think, today— [ Interruption. ] Suddenly someone wants to buy a house. There is also the hospitality tax. I could go on, but executive powers are at their most pernicious when they have no limits. This legislation is not about metrology or about the better regulation of products; it is about giving the Government the power to do what they like, when they like, for reasons they do not have to explain, and then impose it as they see fit. The fact that we might like, and even trust, the current Secretary of State is no reason to give powers like this to Ministers about whom we know nothing now. I hope that Labour Members will join us in opposing this Bill.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that the existing regulations on lithium-ion batteries are insufficient? There is a British standard, and there are environmental and disposal regulations. There is a swathe of regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries, but if there is a failure to enforce them, that should not give Ministers carte blanche to decide on a whim what products, in this area or any other, should be available for sale in the UK without any recourse to Parliament.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain, in answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and others, the rationale behind eliminating level 7 apprenticeships?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is now clear that domestic virgin steel production is a national security imperative. Acting on it is not acting on a whim. Will the Minister respond to her hon. Friends and to Conservative Members by recognising that domestic virgin steel production is a national security imperative? Whether it is through nationalisation, golden shares or the other ideas that have been suggested, if it is a national security imperative we must act, regardless of technology. Will the Minister please tell the House that she agrees with that?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor claimed that growth was her top priority, yet she has taken the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and brought it to a shuddering halt. She promised that there would be no tax rises, but next week’s jobs tax will put tax rises on ordinary working people. Today, she has cut the housing numbers by 200,000 and put up borrowing by £18 billion in the next two years. Is it not time that the Prime Minister invited the Chancellor next door and said, “Rachel, you’re fired”?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Special Educational and Disability Needs · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, your heart would have been gladdened last week to see colleagues from across the House coming together to support my debate calling for the Down Syndrome Act 2022 to be implemented three years on. The Minister for Secondary Care said in response that Down syndrome-specific guidance would be produced, which is welcome. Will the Minister ensure that the consultation group is restricted to organisations that represent Down syndrome people only, and will she promise that, after three long years, that statutory guidance will finally be issued before the end of this calendar year?

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister outline how many billions the Government will spend this year, what percentage £22 billion represents in that amount, and—if I may be so greedy as to ask an additional question, Mr Speaker—how much the flatlining of the economy has cost the Government compared with that £22 billion? I put it to the Minister that the impact of the national insurance contributions rise has been much greater than that of the mythical £22 billion alleged by the Government.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Down’s Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  Several colleagues have mentioned the need for specificity—if the Minister is coming on to that, then great. Would it be fair to say that it is the intent of the Government—I am not looking for cast-iron promises, because we know how challenging these things are—that we should see the guidance issued before the end of this year, all things being well?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Down’s Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  We have had 10 speeches in this debate, which is fantastic. I think we all agree that the stand-out speech was that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). It is great to have the whole House coming together in this way—a number of colleagues focused on that—and to have the pledges from the Minister. I think we can move forward with enthusiasm and engage with the Minister for Care. Led by the co-chairs of the APPG, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), we can ensure that we have a streamlined meeting or meetings to ensure that the Minister’s time is best used, the voices of the community are heard and the guidance is swiftly produced. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered Down’s syndrome.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Down’s Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Down’s syndrome. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I assume that the Minister responsible for this area of policy is still the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock)—the Minister for Secondary Care is nodding. I understand that he has to be somewhere else, but it is great to see the Minister in her place. I organised the debate to call on the Government to implement the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which received Royal Assent three years ago, as Members will be interested to note. Here in the mother of Parliaments, an Act was passed with the democratic engagement of Members from both sides of the House, but three years later it has still not been implemented. It is therefore about time that it was; we need it. The first requirement—the first command—of the Act is that the Government should issue guidance because of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. They were supposed to issue such guidance for local authorities, health authorities, education authorities and everyone else engaged in the support of people with Down syndrome. Various versions of draft guidance have been produced, but none of them even completely covered what was required, let alone adequately. In 2022, the then Minister for Care and Mental Health, my former right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, assured us that the guidance would be “fit for purpose” so we can ensure that people with Down syndrome can access “the support they need”, and that the final guidance would be published in the next year. The previous Government did not fulfil that pledge, and as we sit here today, people with Down syndrome still have not seen that historic Act fully in force. As I said, the draft versions of the guidance so far, according to my understanding—although I do not claim any great expertise—are flawed in a number of ways. Instead of recognising the unique needs of people with Down syndrome, they simply reduce Down syndrome to a subset of a type of learning disability. That limited perspective does a disservice to those with Down syndrome. For instance, individuals with Down syndrome often require tailored speech and language therapy, yet the most recent version of the guidance, published in December, makes only vague references to specialist therapy. My friend, my former right hon. Friend Sir Liam Fox, who was the driving force behind the Act, put it perfectly. He said: “This legislation was specifically for those with Down Syndrome as a definable collection of predictable medical conditions and specific life challenges.” The Act says that it is “to make provision about meeting the needs of persons with Down syndrome; and for connected purposes.” In trying to cater for all individuals with learning disabilities, the guidance misses the mark, failing to provide for the very people it was meant to support when the Act received Royal Assent three years ago. There are reasons to be optimistic. The Prime Minister has rightly pledged to lead a Government of builders, not blockers. Members on both sides of the Chamber, from all political backgrounds, can all stand united in a shared consensus that the guidance needs to be built and issued, and that we need to get the blockers out of the way. We can agree that people with Down syndrome must be recognised as having specific needs, not just generic ones, and that support must be in place to ensure that they have equal access to opportunities to thrive in all aspects of life. What is truly disappointing is that the blockers of progress are not really elected representatives or indeed Ministers, but, I fear, civil servants—those entrusted with carrying out the will of Parliament. Too many of them have obstructed the efforts of Ministers in two different Governments to implement the Act. Despite repeated promises, we still have not seen the creation of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, because if there is blockage and resistance within the Government machine, Ministers need to come together. There would not have to be a permanent taskforce, but there should be one, two or perhaps three meetings at maximum where Ministers get together and ensure that the will of Parliament is brought to fruition. Engagement with key stakeholders has been less than adequate. When the stakeholder group was formed to lead on this work, there was no consultation with Sir Liam Fox, the promoter of the Bill that became the Act, or with Rachael and Ken Ross, the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, who also should have been included, and who were a driving force behind the thinking around the Act. That is not good enough—it is not a party political point. The Prime Minister has my full support to ensure that the Minister here today and her colleague the Minister for Care are empowered to do what they were partly appointed to do, which is to fully implement the Act. I will say a little more on Down syndrome, which is a genetic condition caused by a chromosomal anomaly. While most people have 46 chromosomes, individuals with Down syndrome have three copies of chromosome 21 in each cell, rather than two. There are an estimated 47,000 people living with Down syndrome in the UK, making it the most common chromosomal condition. The good news is that people with Down syndrome are achieving more than ever before: attending mainstream schools, gaining meaningful employment and making invaluable contributions to our communities, as well as living longer. There is a risk, however, that we see that progress as a reason to rest on our laurels. Instead, it shows the huge potential of people with Down syndrome, if only we can unlock it, and the urgent need to do more. There should be no limit to our ambitions for people with Down syndrome, which is why we should not wait one day more than we need to in order to deliver the guidance promised in the Down Syndrome Act. The first step towards meaningful change is the improvement of healthcare. People with learning disabilities die, on average, 24 years younger than those without, and are twice as likely to die from treatable conditions. Whether due to significant delays in diagnoses, unsafe hospital discharges or poor co-ordination between the NHS and other services, one thing is clear: many of those deaths are preventable. Doctors certainly do not mean to harm people with Down syndrome. Instead, it is likely that poor healthcare results from a lack of specific knowledge and training needed to give people with Down syndrome the tailored support that the condition requires. Following the passage of the Act, NHS England issued statutory guidance in 2023, mandating that every integrated care board appoint a named executive lead at board level to drive better outcomes for people with Down syndrome. That was to provide accountability within the system, so we could say that the Ministers are responsible, not civil servants. However, in the implementation —in the delivery on the ground across the country—of course civil servants are responsible. That is why it was an explicit part of the campaign around the Act, and an explicit promise from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that we would see people appointed—not so that they could be hidden, but so they could be publicly available, contacted and asked what they are doing within their area. That was so that we could challenge not only the health system, but schools on what they are doing and why, in so many parts of the country, a Down syndrome child is automatically assumed to need to go to a specialist school when a lot of the evidence is they do better in mainstream—but only, of course, if the people in the schools have been given the support and skills to deliver that improvement. A few days ago, however, when I sought to find out who those named accountable individuals are to allow the Down syndrome community to hold the Government and the system to account, I was able to find a publicly nominated lead in only three of the 42 ICBs in England, and two of those leads are called David Jarrett. I ask the Minister, what is going on? Can we make sure that those leads are publicly named and prominent on the websites of ICBs; that lists are issued and kept up to date; and that everyone in the Down syndrome community can easily find out who is responsible for the delivery of those services? That would ensure that not only health, but the wider community of public services is a servant of people with Down syndrome, rather than turning a person with Down syndrome into a supplicant. After healthcare, I turn next to education, which is crucial to the life chances of people with Down syndrome. As I have said, research suggests that people with Down syndrome often achieve better outcomes in mainstream education than in specialist schools, provided that it is appropriate for their specific needs. Officials in the Department for Education are best placed to offer guidance on that, which highlights the importance of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce. The Minister will have already discovered in her relatively short time as a Minister—we all know what it is like—that Departments other than where such Acts are made tend to be quite resistant to them. Sometimes the only way to cut through and make sure that sufficiently senior civil servants take on board these Acts of Parliament and do what they are obliged to do on a statutory basis is for Ministers to be called together to issue such an instruction and push the system to do what it is supposed to do. Otherwise those Departments will sit in their own lane, following the particular priorities of their Secretary of State, and utterly ignoring their statutory obligation to deliver on an Act of Parliament. Some progress has been made, but there is more to do. Statistics from NHS Digital reveal that only 6% of working-age adults with learning disabilities who receive long-term social care are employed. In other words, 94% are not. When we meet the people who are and see what they can do, we ask, how many more are there? If only we put in place the right co-ordinated system, how many more could have much more fulfilling lives? We should get the incentives aligned. If there are fears now about a person with Down syndrome losing benefits, it might not be them deciding—they may not even be spoken to—but members of their family or their social worker might decide, “Oh, it is best to take no risks and just keep them on benefits,” rather than supporting them into a job where they can be full members of society, contribute and benefit from that activity. Even more troubling, 68% of those who are employed work less than 16 hours a week. Those figures are not just numbers; they reflect the deep systemic barriers that still limit opportunities for people with Down syndrome in the workforce. Despite a range of initiatives, it is clear that we need stronger, sustained efforts to ensure that people with Down syndrome can access fulfilling long-term employment. Only then will we truly break down the barriers to their independence and potential. I hope that it is by now clear to the Minister why we must break down those barriers, and why it is critical that the will of Parliament, in the form of an Act of Parliament that is now three years old, is upheld and implemented, and that change is delivered without further delay. The time for action is now, so I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When will the promised cross-ministerial taskforce be created? At the very least, could she speak to her colleague the Minister for Care and push for one? I know that it is hard to get Ministers to turn up for some other Department’s cross-ministerial taskforce, so it often takes personal contact, an agreement that it is not going to run on forever, and someone saying, “Look, this is important. Let’s get this over the line. Please come along.” We need to get the right Minister at the right time, with sufficient seniority around the table and a real will to enact change and make a difference. If that could come out of this debate, it would be fantastic. Will the Minister ensure that the consultation group contains only Down syndrome-specific organisations, so that the legislation supports people with the condition, as is set out in the Act? There has been a tendency to open up consultations to everybody engaged with learning disability, so people with little or no understanding of the specifics of Down syndrome have been engaged in the consultations run by civil servants. The whole thing has run into the ground and lost the specific focus of the Act. The National Down Syndrome Policy Group informed me that the draft guidance issued to sector groups contained significant omissions. I always find it much easier to commit to meetings on behalf of colleagues than to commit myself, so I hope I can tempt the Minister to do so. Will the Minister commit the Minister for Care to meeting Rachael and Ken Ross—I would also love to attend—as soon as possible? They are the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, and they do exceptional work for people with Down syndrome. They are in the Public Gallery alongside Millie, who recently gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group. Millie is always available to correct any of us when we get our policies wrong, as she will attest. Given that it has been three years, will the Minister provide a clear date—an aspiration from the Government —for when we will get comprehensive guidance? When can we get it ready, in a final version, to go through all the sign-off processes of Government? When can we expect it to be officially issued? Those are not just procedural questions; they are vital to ensuring that the promises made to people with Down syndrome are delivered, and that we move forward with the urgency and specificity that this issue demands. Hon. Members in this Chamber will speak for themselves, but I am sure they all stand with the Minister in this effort. On behalf of the 47,000 people with Down syndrome across the country, we urge the Minister to ensure that a suitable and proper version of the guidance is produced quickly, and that is truly reflects the experiences and needs of people with Down syndrome, specifically. If alongside that exercise someone wants to produce separate, more generic guidance, that is fine; but can we ensure that the guidance described in the Act is delivered for people with Down syndrome, and that it is published and fully implemented without delay? A great opportunity lies ahead for all of us. We can be part of delivering meaningful, lasting change for thousands of people, now and for generations to come. I am sure support will come from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and I hope we will send the Minister out from this debate determined to ensure that her colleague, the Minister for Care, does the right thing.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister intends to ensure that this does not happen, but would someone have to record all the hours and places in a week? I do not know how much the Minister knows about home education, but children are educated in all sorts of places. She has an opportunity at the Dispatch Box to say that she will come forward with regulations to ensure that they do not have to write down every time that they stop at an ice cream shop for some education about the vanilla flavour.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister reassure home-educating parents that the requirements in the Bill will not be overly onerous? For instance, there is a requirement to record the time that each parent spends educating their child. Is that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year? How exactly would that work? Can she give us some reassurance that this measure can be made manageable and sensible, and will not be disproportionate?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Like me, my hon. Friend finds these proposals tragic because of the removal of the curriculum freedoms that have allowed schools such as Michaela and Petchey and others all over the country to tailor their curriculum specifically to reach disadvantaged pupils so that they can engage better with their learning and have an achievement that previously they did not have. That door is being closed. I hope that Government Members reflect on this and seek a change of policy, if not in this House, then at least in the House of Lords.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is good of the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to give way. As I know her to be an honest person, will she at least share with the House the fact that schools in England are better today than they were in 2010? Picking some tiny subset of time to make out that schools are deprived is not a fair assessment. Schools are demonstrably better in England today than they were in 2010. Please, Minister, at least acknowledge that.