Lauren Edwards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2025 · New Unitary Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned by media comments over the last week that suggest that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill may render sites of special scientific interest protections meaningless. Will the Secretary of State clarify the Bill’s position on this and outline what protections there will be for SSSIs like Lodge hill in my constituency with its important nightingale population?

• 19 May 2025 · Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident · Hansard source

  More

  A recent Public Accounts Committee inquiry found that the Government still have substantial gaps in their understanding of how resilient their IT estate is to cyber-attack. It was really helpful to hear from the Minister about the work that is ongoing, but in the light of this very serious incident, will she and all Departments urgently assess the robustness of cyber-defences, not only in arm’s length bodies such as the Legal Aid Agency but in legacy IT systems and the supply chain—which the Committee found to be known areas of weakness—to ensure that our cyber-defences in Whitehall are as strong as possible?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s Second Reading of the Bill. I would like to focus on one aspect of the legislation: the removal of autism and learning disability from the definition of mental disorder under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. I recently visited a wonderful local charity, the Challenging Behaviour Foundation. It is the only UK charity specifically focused on the needs of children, young people and adults with severe learning disabilities whose behaviour may be described as challenging, and their families. On that visit, I was shocked to learn that under the Mental Health Act, autistic people and people with a learning disability can be detained in mental health hospitals indefinitely, just because they are autistic or have a learning disability. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for sharing his extensive professional experience, but I disagree with him on one point: in my view, autism and learning disability are not mental health conditions, and I do not believe that they should be treated as such in law, which is a view shared by a lot of people in the sector who I have spoken to in advance of the debate. This issue is currently affecting a lot of people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) said, over 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability are in mental health hospitals in England today, the vast majority of whom are there under the Mental Health Act. Importantly, around 225 of them are under the age of 18, so this is affecting a lot of our young people. Mental health hospitals are often inappropriate for autistic people and people with a learning disability. Once detained, they can get stuck in those settings for many years, which can be deeply overwhelming and damaging and lead to lifelong trauma. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned, the average length of stay for current in-patients is nearly five years, and we have to ask ourselves why that is. The latest available data shows that the key reasons for delayed discharge are a lack of suitable housing and a lack of social care. Charities like CBF continue to hear worrying stories of abuse, over-medication, unnecessary restraint and seclusion in these settings. Back in 2011, “Panorama” uncovered abuse at Winterbourne View hospital, bringing attention to the fact that many people with a learning disability and autistic people were being detained in hospitals, when they could and should be living in the community. Since then, there have been numerous policy interventions and action plans from the previous Government. However, sadly they have not resulted in the changes promised and all national targets to reduce in-patient numbers have been missed; in fact, the numbers have increased. Legislative change is clearly needed, and I welcome the change to detention criteria in the Bill that will mean that autistic people and people with a learning disability cannot be detained for treatment unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition that requires in-patient mental health care. However, on page 72 of the impact assessment, the Government say that the proposed changes “will only be switched on when systems are able to demonstrate sufficient level of community support”. Ensuring appropriate provision of services in the community is crucial to supporting autistic people and those with a learning disability, so that they can be discharged from hospital, and so that we can prevent needs from escalating, and prevent admission to mental health hospitals. However, if there is no comprehensive, fully resourced plan to build capacity in the community and enable this change to be “switched on”, this vital reform could be delayed for far too long. I urge the Government to publish a comprehensive plan to ensure that the change to detention criteria can be commenced, and to ensure accountability for this process. Ideally, commencement would be in 2027, in line with modelling in the impact assessment. I also ask that those changes be co-produced with the people who will be affected by them. The previous Government’s “Building the Right Support Service Model” could act as the starting point, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the challenging behaviour national strategy group, co-ordinated by CBF, which has developed a co-produced, lifelong action plan that sets out not only the changes that need to be made to get community support right, but resources and best practice. I encourage the Minister to meet families to better understand the impact of inappropriate detention on people with a learning disability or autism and their families. I would be happy to help co-ordinate that through CBF.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Next week I will be visiting the site of a proposed project in my constituency that will create the only new interconnector between Great Britain and France, which can be built and operational by 2030, to help deliver the Government’s clean power mission. Ahead of the proposed UK-France summit this summer, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how to expedite conversations with our French counterparts, so that we can move forward with this important project?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. The previous Government failed to properly support further and adult education over the past 14 years. In contrast, the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to technical qualifications has been encouraging. Last year’s Budget provided a welcome boost to some parts of the sector, but need and demand are outstripping available funding. Skills are crucial to the Government meeting their mission to deliver economic growth, build 1.5 million homes and transition to a green economy. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the funding model will be reviewed, so that we do not see colleges having to turn away people who want to gain the skills that our country so desperately needs?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The invest in women taskforce aims to drive investment in female-powered businesses at every stage. That includes putting more money in the hands of female investors, as we know that women back women. Does the Minister agree that one solution to tackling the gender disparity in investment decision-making roles is to set a minimum level of female representation for all investment committees that receive British Business Bank funding?

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

  More

  I do not support the amendment but will speak in favour of the Bill. As many have highlighted, there is a gap between the skills needed by employers and the skills held by the UK workforce. Skills shortage vacancies have been on the rise year after year, and the latest data shows that a third of all vacancies are due to skills shortages. It is holding our country back and, therefore, the system needs to change. The immediate skills gaps need to be addressed urgently, but just as pressing is the need to have a single body that considers the skills that our businesses will need 10, 20 or 30 years from now, with 1.4 million new jobs predicted by 2035 alone. Many of those new jobs will need technical green skills, digital skills and understanding of artificial intelligence. If our Government are to achieve the changes in this country that so many people voted for—more homes, green energy and economic growth that puts money back into people’s pockets—skills are the key ingredient. The importance of apprenticeships and technical qualifications to that mission cannot be underestimated. Indeed, I was immensely proud when the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary visited MidKent College in my constituency before the election to set out their ambition to put vocational education on the same footing as academic university education. If Skills England is to achieve its aims and help us to meet the skills challenges our country faces, it must cover all areas. I therefore welcome the Bill, which folds IfATE into Skills England to enable that integrated approach to support our labour market and economy. As others have mentioned, the Bill will make Skills England an Executive agency of the Department for Education. I am pleased that Ministers amended the Bill in the other place to require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament detailing the exercise of functions conferred on her by the Bill. I understand that will also make clear the functions that Skills England will take on and the expected effects of those functions. I likewise welcome the commitment to publishing details of the framework that will be used to hold Skills England to account for its delivery and its relationship with employers. The clarity those documents will provide is most welcome. I will also take this opportunity briefly to welcome the reforms announced by the Government during National Apprenticeship Week. The apprenticeship levy under the former Government, well meaning though it was, was too cumbersome and restrictive for too many employers and learners. As a result, apprenticeship starts fell off a cliff, and the latest data on apprenticeship completion shows a rate of just 55% in England. I am therefore pleased that the Government have listened to employers and training providers and committed to making the new growth and skills levy, which will replace the apprenticeship levy, simpler, more flexible and employer-led. I note that Skills England will be tasked with carrying out analysis of the broader types of training that will be eligible under the new levy and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work, which will be hugely beneficial to employers and apprentices. A common issue with the current apprenticeship schemes in this country, as others have mentioned, is that it does not work for small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have large human resources departments to help navigate the often complex skills landscape. Nowhere is this more apparent than in my local authority area of Medway where 90% of all businesses are SMEs. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that the voices of SMEs will be heard, so that we get an apprenticeship framework that works for all types of businesses? That is particularly important if we are to drive growth across all parts of the country. I know, for instance, that there are some larger businesses looking at how they can provide practical apprenticeship support to SMEs in their supply chain, so it would be good to know whether the Government are considering how they can best incentivise approaches such as this, which will help hugely by “de-risking” apprenticeships for SMEs. Likewise, I know that there are some amazing smaller training providers. I have a fantastic women-led one in my constituency called Umbrella Training. It is equally important that these providers’ experiences and needs are reflected in the new apprenticeship system. There are always risks associated with change; that is unavoidable. There is obviously some concern that the transfer of IfATE to Skills England may lead to a level of disruption, so it would be helpful if the Minister provided details of the main risks identified by her Department for the transition and how they will be managed and mitigated. Doing so would help to provide assurance to those currently undertaking apprenticeships and other technical qualifications, as well as to employers. It will be particularly important to ensure that the knowledge and expertise of staff at IfATE—no doubt built up over many years—is not lost during this process. It will also be helpful for Skills England to set out a number of other issues in due course, such as what changes may be proposed to the local skills improvement plan framework, and assurance that local areas will be able to prioritise sectors or industries that are key to driving their local economy that may not feature in the Government’s industrial strategy, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) earlier in the debate. Anything further that the Minister can say on these points at this stage would be welcome. Finally, clause 6 removes the requirement to review technical educational qualifications at regular intervals. Instead, the Secretary of State will have the flexibility to focus on reviews based on need. It would be helpful if, in her response, the Minister outlined what steps will be taken to ensure that the quality and relevance of qualifications is maintained under the new framework.

• 12 Feb 2025 · AI Growth Zones · Hansard source

  More

  Rochester and Strood, positioned between London and mainland Europe, is well placed to help drive the UK’s AI economy. We have: several net zero energy projects ready to go, with further plans for a data centre and battery storage; a council that is already using AI and which created an AI accelerator programme to support local businesses; and three university campuses that are driving innovation. Will the Minister meet me to discuss my constituency’s potential as a future AI growth zone?

• 12 Feb 2025 · AI Growth Zones · Hansard source

  More

  7. What progress he has made on setting up AI growth zones across the country.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget will improve the lives of so many of my constituents in Rochester and Strood. They will see the benefit in their wage slips, see the things they care most about in their community, such as the local pub and their high street, supported, and see their public services finally invested in again. Investment in the NHS through this Budget is key. It was the No. 1 issue raised on the doorsteps in the election and is perhaps best exemplified by the struggle to book a GP appointment. The simplest of tasks—for someone to seek help from a medical professional when they are ill—was made into what felt like an impossible task after 14 years of Conservative government. I reminded voters many times during the election that the NHS is always safer in Labour’s hands, so I am delighted to see that our first Budget sets us up to meet that promise so quickly. As others have mentioned, we have a record-breaking £22 billion increase in day-to-day spending, a £3.1 billion capital boost to pay for new technology and improve our buildings, and a landmark public consultation to set out a long-term plan for how the NHS develops over the next decade. I am proud that we are a Government who have been transparent and honest with people about our priorities to fund that investment. The Chancellor has delivered a Budget that protects working people and instead asks big businesses and the well off to contribute. The Budget does not dodge the tough choices just to get through the next media cycle, but instead is informed by Lord Darzi’s thorough point-in-time assessment of the state of the NHS that was handed back to us by the Conservatives. It lays the foundation to take the NHS from the analogue to digital, from hospital to community-led care and from treating sickness to focusing on prevention and promoting good health. Those approaches will take different forms across the country, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the potential for an elective care centre in the former Debenhams store on Chatham High Street in my constituency. I have written to the Secretary of State about this proposal, and I would welcome a conversation about its merits, particularly as it is a good example of the invest-to-save model that is promoted so well in the Budget. It would not only free up space at the Medway Maritime hospital and help tackle waiting lists, but would have further benefits by supporting town centre economic regeneration. I welcome provision in the Budget for a £600 million increase in local government spending to support social care. Like many MPs, I have a background in local government and I understand all too well how much the uplift is needed.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I have only 20 seconds left, so apologies, but I will not. We all know that the social care sector needs to be transformed, and I hope that over time we can move to a more fully integrated health and social care system in this country. Future Budgets may be able to apply the same exemptions to charitable care homes as happens for the NHS. That would be to the benefit of places such as Frindsbury House in my constituency, which is run with great care and compassion by the Mortimer Society.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Lower Thames Crossing · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the lower Thames crossing has the potential to boost skills and economic growth not only in Dartford, but across Kent, and in particular in Medway, the area that I represent? In recent years, I have had many helpful conversations with the lower Thames crossing team about ensuring that opportunities for skilled jobs in construction, in green industries and in steel can be accessed by my constituents in Rochester and Strood. Some 192 businesses in Medway have already registered on the lower Thames crossing supply chain, so this is potentially a huge opportunity to boost skills and economic growth in the region.

• 29 Oct 2024 · IPP Sentences · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. The introduction of IPP sentences was well intentioned but in reality it has gone badly wrong. That is not only my view but the view of Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were introduced. We know that two of the key failures were that IPP sentences were intended for only the most serious violent and sexual offences but in practice captured many of the lower level criminal offences and were applied to shorter sentences, and that the practical implications of the recall provision were not properly appreciated or considered at the time of introduction. From what I understand, we have cross-party agreement on that assessment and on the intention to correct it. I view today’s debate as being about how we can best and most quickly achieve that aim and address, as others have said, a gross injustice. As a MP for only a matter of months, I am already acutely aware of the toll those sentences have taken, not only on the prisoners who are affected but on their family members. I have at least two constituents who are currently recalled to prison because of non-criminal breaches of their licences and who are dealing with post-traumatic stress and other mental health challenges. That is driven to a significant extent by the uncertainty about whether they will ever be released or even about when their next parole hearing will be. As I and others have mentioned, that also significantly affects the family. I am sorry to say that I have been made aware that one of their partners has committed suicide in recent days. Her family’s view is that her losing her partner and her main source of support, while he was on one of those sentences, has been a contributing factor. I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are taking action to implement the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Government, and I really welcome that. The new automatic termination process and the presumption to terminate, and reducing the associated qualifying periods, will help a significant number of those currently on IPP licences. I ask the Minister to consider what additional steps the Government could take to accelerate the safe release of IPP prisoners who are still in custody, and to prevent the recall merry-go-round which many have experienced. Recalled prisoners are a growing proportion of the total number of IPP prisoners in England and Wales. Many of the reasons for recall speak more to the need for mental health provision than for a recall to prison. For instance, one of my constituents was recalled for things he said to the police during a mental health crisis while intoxicated. Having served 17 years on an IPP sentence, he will now be in prison for an indeterminate length of time while waiting to be seen by the Parole Board, having committed no further criminal offences. As far back as 2008, the chief inspectors of prisons and probation were highlighting the lack of resources necessary to rehabilitate IPP prisoners and the enormous strain IPP sentences placed on the prison system and the Parole Board. We know we inherited from the last Government a prison estate and a criminal justice system that is now in even worse shape. It is teetering on the edge and requiring the early release of some prisoners where it is considered safe to do so. I certainly welcome the action the Minister and his colleagues have taken to begin to clean up the mess. Last week in the main Chamber we were told that IPP sentences would be excluded from the sentencing review announced by the Secretary of State. I understand the reasons why, but the actions that are being taken for those on IPP sentences and the new sentencing review must speak to each other, particularly where they are addressing common challenges such as the need to focus on rehabilitation and support in the community and to free up prison places across the prison estate. Key to this will be the IPP action plan. We have a plan, but as yet no report to Parliament on its effectiveness. My understanding is that that was due in March, but was delayed to May by the previous Government and has still not been published. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward that publication as a matter of urgency, together with the annual report by the Secretary of State on steps taken to support those serving IPP sentences with their rehabilitation and progress towards release. I also urge the Minister to consider the ways in which the IPP action plan could be improved, reflecting on some of the feedback on its inadequacy that has been highlighted by previous Justice Committees and other civil society organisations. We must understand the adequacy of the current support available to prisoners serving IPP sentences or who have been recalled and have clear measures of assessment. We cannot continue to have IPP prisoners languishing in our overcrowded jails. As of March this year, 80% of unreleased IPP prisoners had been in prison for over twice their original tariff length. I previously mentioned that IPP sentences had been attached to offences other than the most serious offences that were intended in the original legislation. I note that around 190 IPP prisoners are still in custody more than 10 years after completing their original tariff of two years. As the Justice Committee, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust have said, there are high rates of self-harm and recall to prison among IPP prisoners. That should cause us to look very closely at the adequacy of the support they are receiving, both in prison and when out on licence, and make improving it a priority for the new Labour Government. It is self-evident that those two things are linked, and that it will be very difficult for IPP prisoners to show that they no longer present a threat to the public if they are not receiving intensive support to deal with the psychological effects of believing they may never leave prison despite, for instance, having passed the end of the two-year tariff more than a decade previously. Lord Moylan has in the past described IPP sentences as “a form of mental torture”, as other Members have referenced today. I agree with him that we have a moral responsibility to administer justice to IPP prisoners, who have been neglected for too long. Some Members have today raised resentencing. I know from her answer to my question in the Chamber last week that the Secretary of State is not in favour of resentencing. However, it is not clear to me why it could not be done in a way that balances the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender, as recommended by the Justice Committee in the past, via an expert committee that could correct any disproportionate sentences while considering public safety. A wide range of respected organisations consider that that could be done and I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on that point. Just as I opened with words from Lord Blunkett, so I will end with them. He has described the current situation concerning recalled IPP prisoners in particular as “unequal”, “unjust” and “immoral”. The coalition Government took the right step in ending IPP sentences in 2012, but they left unfinished business. Those still serving IPP sentences, or who have been recalled, need a system that will be fairer to them and give them the necessary support to leave prison while preserving public safety. It is our issue to fix as the new Labour Government.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the sentencing review and thank the Secretary of State for her explanation of why IPP sentences are not included in the review. What steps will she take to accelerate routes out of custody for prisoners serving IPP sentences, including a re-sentencing review that can be done without prejudice to public protection, to end an injustice once and for all and to increase capacity on our prison estate?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Eurostar services have not called at Ashford or Ebbsfleet international rail stations since the pandemic, with Eurostar stating that it will not resume services for some years. That is having a really detrimental impact on businesses and residents in my constituency, and more broadly across Medway and Kent. Will the Secretary of State meet me, other interested MPs and representatives from the Kent and Medway economic partnership to discuss options to restore this vital rail service and help to boost economic growth in the region?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to support a Bill that finally ends section 21 no-fault evictions and strengthens the rights of the 20% of households in the Medway towns who are renting privately, and who have experienced rent increases of, on average, 11% in the past year alone. As a number of Labour Members have mentioned, the last Government failed repeatedly to end no-fault evictions, despite that being a manifesto promise. They therefore presided over a situation in which rents skyrocketed, pushing even renting a home, let alone the dream of home ownership, out of many working people’s capacity. I really welcome this long-overdue rebalancing of the relationship between landlord and tenant. From now on, unscrupulous and exploitative landlords will no longer be able to ignore the concerns of tenants, impose unreasonable rent increases or evict families because they ask for repairs to substandard and often deficient homes, often to remarket at a higher rent. I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing homelessness and the number of households in temporary accommodation. Local authority data shows that about 509 households in Medway are currently living in temporary accommodation, including about 818 children. There must be greater understanding of the detrimental impact on society of people being stuck in cramped and unsuitable accommodation, and greater recognition of the waste of valuable public resources that councils are forced to spend on temporary accommodation for those who have been made homeless by landlords using section 21 evictions. This is money that we should instead use to build the new, high-quality and sustainable social homes for rent that the country sorely needs. Our aim must be to protect families from eviction from their homes of many years, and from being uprooted from their local communities and social networks. Anchorage House, in my constituency, is a perfect example of where an east London borough has placed many people who have been evicted in temporary accommodation. The children’s ability to learn and the adults’ ability to work have been disrupted, and the health and wellbeing of entire families has often dramatically worsened. The steep social and financial costs of section 21 evictions are paid by councils, schools, workplaces and the NHS, and this cannot continue. We have to end the unhealthy reliance on a temporary accommodation system that really is not temporary for many people. The Bill strikes the right balance by still providing landlords with reasonable grounds for possession while ending the constant churn. I have been greatly concerned by the treatment of constituents who have been served with section 21 notices and the huge challenges they face in securing new accommodation, and I really welcome the increase in the notice period for some of the mandatory grounds for possession from two to four months. Members should recognise that losing one’s home creates huge upheaval and that, with high demand for rental properties, it can be very difficult to secure a new home. I can certainly speak to my personal experience of that. I echo Members’ calls to make sure that local councils have the right resources to enforce some of the new powers, which I greatly welcome. I believe that I heard the Secretary of State indicate in her opening remarks that there would be ringfenced funding for that purpose, and I encourage the Minister and the Secretary of State to ensure that the details come forward before the Bill receives Royal Assent. My constituents in Rochester and Strood really cannot afford not to have this Bill become law. It will help so many individuals and families, and create a better, fairer private rented sector for tenants and landlords alike.

• 12 Sept 2024 · UK Shared Prosperity Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and I will be making the case for that replacement fund later. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. In my constituency, more than 30 local businesses have so far been supported under these UKSPF-funded programmes to reduce their costs, to grow their business and to contribute to helping us reach net zero. We would not be able to do that without this replacement funding for the EU structural funds. I am conscious that in this final funding year the focus of UKSPF spending is on people and skills. It will be important for Ministers and others to assess the impact that these projects have on helping economically inactive people into good-quality training and work. The examples I have given are just a snapshot of how local councils across the UK have used the UKSPF. Overall, I consider that the UKSPF has worked well in my constituency, and I understand that it has worked well in others too, which is great to hear. It has delivered the economic growth and regeneration aims that this new Government are committed to boosting further. Despite those successes, there have been challenges with the UKSPF, and it is appropriate that we consider them now, as the existing funding cycle comes to a close. Broader feedback from local authorities to the Local Government Association has highlighted a number of issues. The first is short timescales from Whitehall. Local authorities were given just three months to develop UKSPF investment plans in collaboration with local stakeholders. We need to give people more time to get the right approach and to put more emphasis on long-term strategic planning. The LGA has proposed that any future version of the UKSPF considered by the Government should adopt a six to eight-year funding cycle, and I would certainly endorse that approach. We also need to reflect on the impact of single-year funding. The annual funding allocation of the UKSPF often led to local authorities commissioning services for just 12 months in order to manage the financial risk. For some projects, that is perfectly appropriate, but for those local areas using the UKSPF for business or skills support, for example, it made it more difficult to address some of the longer-term issues and inequalities in our communities. Another issue is central Government restrictions. The requirement that skills be addressed in year 3 was an unnecessary restriction. We should trust local authorities to collaborate with their local partners in order to address community needs without such restrictions. I also consider that there is scope to improve and streamline the UKSPF reporting process, which some feedback has indicated was overly bureaucratic. It is of course important that the Government receive assurance that funding has been spent appropriately and used effectively. A fine balance will need to be struck in future. Finally, I am aware that there were some delays in getting money out the door to local authorities to fund agreed projects. It is important that that, too, is considered by the new Minister for any future approach to local growth funding. I will return to the immediate challenge that we face: the expiration of funding to support the UKSPF at the end of March 2025. Without continued funding of some sort, the types of initiatives that I have highlighted will struggle to continue or be replicated. I am not aware of any existing funding that would help fill the gap. For longer-term services such as business support and employability programmes that rely on establishing trust and employing staff, the cliff edge is of particular concern. Providers are likely to see staff leave as contracts get closer to their end dates, putting at risk efforts to support businesses and help people get back into work and stay in good, stable employment. For those reasons, I join with the LGA to urge the Minister to work with the Chancellor to include an additional one year of flexible revenue funding for the UKSPF in the forthcoming Budget. The LGA has suggested that such funding should equate to the value of year 3 of the UKSPF programme. I ask the Minister to consider that as part of his discussions with the Chancellor. Doing so would remove the immediate cliff edge and give Ministers time to consider what the new Government’s approach to local growth funds should be. As I have set out, I consider that longer term allocations are needed alongside a more flexible and lighter-touch national framework that supports even greater local decision making. That would also give time to assess the full outputs of the UKSPF and what improvements can be made for a future replacement fund. I am pleased to say that the outcomes achieved by Medway council already exceed those set out in the original UKSPF investment plan submitted to Whitehall some years ago. That data, alongside data from lots of other local authorities, should be available to Ministers and could provide a valuable steer on what approaches proved successful and what did not work. I am really confident that by learning from the past and working in partnership with local government to deliver a more flexible, longer-term funding scheme, the new Government could provide a real boost to local economies and communities that goes beyond far beyond anything that we have seen in the current UKSPF funding cycle.

• 12 Sept 2024 · UK Shared Prosperity Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to hold my first Adjournment debate in this House. I sought this debate because I am conscious that the forthcoming Budget is rapidly approaching and I wanted to raise with Members and Ministers the issue of the cliff edge for funding of the UK shared prosperity fund. Any future funding of the UKSPF is of course a matter for the Chancellor, but I would like to use the debate today to discuss the merits of the fund, how we can learn from the experiences of implementing it over the past few years, particularly in local government, and the approach to local growth funds under the new Labour Government. We know that the Government’s top mission is to boost economic growth across the UK. It is my firm belief that a new, improved version of the UKSPF could make an important contribution to that while also supporting local communities and boosting regeneration efforts. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), for his attendance today; I know that he cares strongly about local growth and supporting community cohesion, and I look forward to hearing his response at the debate’s conclusion. The UKSPF was introduced as the domestic replacement for the European structural and investment fund after Brexit. The previous funding provided by the Conservative Government did not match the European structural and investment fund but did provide local authorities with some devolved funding to support local priorities, with particular emphasis on regeneration, business support and skills. The UKSPF began in December 2022 and is due to end in March 2025. Although it is by no means perfect, I believe it has had a broadly positive impact and I would like to draw on my own experience as a former Medway council cabinet member responsible for distributing the UKSPF. Feedback from Whitehall to officials at the council has been that Medway council’s approach was considered best practice, and hence I am keen that the Minister hears about our experience. I know he is a big supporter of local government and evidence-based policy making, and no doubt he will wish to hear from other Members of this House who also have direct experience of the UKSPF. In Medway, we used our UKSPF allocation to support local community groups, businesses and charities, which we considered best placed to recognise what their areas needed in order to thrive. Rather than a top-down approach, we asked communities what they needed and functioned as the facilitator to make things happen, using the UKSPF. The feedback we received was that this approach was empowering for local communities and brought people together. An SPF network was established that created a mutually supportive community that led in later years to joint bids for community projects. The UKSPF’s potential to support broader regeneration efforts to revitalise our town centres is significant. In Medway, small pots of money delivered significant economic and social benefits. One of the ways I was particularly keen to use the UKSPF was to help our town centre forums host high street events, on the basis that this would bring in thousands of extra visitors and benefit local businesses. A notable example of this is the Chatham Chinese new year festival, held earlier this year in what is now my constituency. I was the biggest such celebration in the UK outside London and led to an approximate 25% increase in footfall on Chatham High Street. The festival was free to attend and saw a parade, street food, a market, traditional dancers and martial arts masterclasses. The Chatham town centre forum partnered with the local Chinese association, the shopping centre, Medway Youth Council, and local schools and charities to deliver the event. Feedback from residents and vendors was unanimously supportive. Materials purchased using the UKSPF will enable the event to run for future years without further financial support from the council, so the UKSPF will leave a lasting impact. This is important because we want schemes like the UKSPF where possible to deliver longer-term benefits. I will briefly turn to a few other ways that we used the UKSPF to support longer-term improvements in Medway. We offered small feasibility funds—pots of as little as £5,000—to help groups demonstrate that an idea would work. They could then use that proof of concept to go on to attract funding from other sources to make it happen. We helped community groups, such as the Chatham Intra Cultural Consortium, to transition into a charitable incorporated organisation, or CIO. Achieving that new structure means that it can bid for other sources of funding and is less reliant on financial support from the council. That means it can continue its incredibly important heritage work. Helping groups to get on a more financially sustainable footing is particularly important in the context of years of constrained local government finance. We also used the UKSPF to provide grants to help businesses to grow by purchasing modern technology and equipment. For instance, a gift business specialising in handmade travel keepsakes was able to use the grant to invest in a new fibre laser machine, which significantly enhanced the business’s productivity and efficiency, allowing it to handle larger orders. We also funded net zero audits and green grants for local businesses that wanted to reduce their operating costs by making their premises more energy-efficient, and we helped them get those green certificates that are now needed to bid for many contracts.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The voluntary sector had a strong voice under the previous Labour Government, and partnership with it was key to our achievements in office. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the voluntary sector has a strong voice once again under Labour, so that we can deliver the Government’s industrial strategy, particularly as it relates to the creative industries and the mission to ensure high-quality care for all?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  9. What recent progress his Department has made on introducing an industrial strategy.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Madam Chair. I pay tribute to the many hon. Members who have given such impressive maiden speeches today. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) who gave such a passionate speech about her constituency, and who certainly did her family very proud. Although she has left her place, may I also commend the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for her excellent speech, which, as somebody born in Australia, I particularly appreciated for its reference to the Australian opera singer, Dame Nellie Melba? Financial market stability and public trust in announcements on fiscally significant measures are, funnily enough, not issues that come up regularly on the doorstep. But the real-life consequences when these two important pillars of our society are lacking was central to the recent conversations that I had across Rochester and Strood. The cost of living pressures, already challenging for most, were heightened as families found that they had to pay, on average, hundreds of pounds more just to put a roof over their heads. The cause of that additional pressure—the former Truss Government’s mini-Budget—was a deeply undesirable situation that this Bill seeks to prevent from ever happening again. One reason given for the adverse market reaction to that mini-Budget was the lack of forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility—an omission which, in turn, contributed to a lack of investor confidence in the plans. Political parties, whatever their colour, can have the best policies in the world, but if they are not backed with economic competence and market confidence in those who are holding the purse strings, no one will be better off for them. We cannot and should not play fast and loose with the economy, so, like many others, I take great comfort from the Bill. That includes the chair of the OBR himself, Robert Hughes, who says that the Bill will address a gap in the current law and “serve to strengthen the legal foundations for fiscal management.” It is surely only right that policymakers, when making major fiscal decisions, base those decisions on up-to-date economic and fiscal outlooks, published at the same time to give maximum transparency. I dwell so much on economic stability as I view it as a necessary precondition for economic growth—this Government’s chief mission—and because, in recent years, there has not been enough focus on the latter in places such as Medway. I am immensely proud to call Rochester and Strood my home and honoured to have been given the opportunity by its residents to represent them here in this place. I will work hard every day to ensure that residents’ voices are heard in this Chamber and to get a better deal for everybody in Rochester and Strood. I will do that by continuing to drive regeneration work in my constituency, work that I began as a former cabinet member on Medway council. I will work with the Government and the private sector to bring more investment to our towns and villages, support the local business community to thrive, and provide more opportunities for young people, so that they do not feel that they need to move away to get on in life. Rochester and Strood has many strengths, not least the military presence at Brompton barracks, home of the Royal Engineers. The River Medway, which runs the length of the constituency, has so much potential for industry, leisure and tourism, and a very rich maritime history from the days of Chatham dockyard. We have a burgeoning creative community centred at Chatham Intra, developing green industries out on the Hoo peninsula, and high-quality technical colleges and universities. However, we also have high levels of deprivation in the constituency, not enough good-quality and affordable housing, an overburdened hospital, and not enough infrastructure, including health services, public transport and banking services, to support our communities, particularly on the more rural Strood side of the constituency.

• 2 Sept 2024 · High Streets Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are rightly focused on bringing empty properties back into use as part of our commitment to regenerate high streets, but encouraging footfall by supporting local communities to hold events in our town centres is another way we can bring life back to our high streets and support local businesses. That is certainly the approach I took when I was the cabinet member on Medway Council in charge of economic regeneration, using the UK shared prosperity fund. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss learnings from that experience and what an improved new fund could look like under this Government?

• 2 Sept 2024 · High Streets Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps she plans to take to help regenerate high streets.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Last week, a horrific incident took place in my constituency, with the attack on uniformed Royal Engineer Lieutenant Colonel Mark Teeton on the streets of Brompton. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to Kent Police, ambulance and NHS workers, Medway council and senior officers from the Brompton barracks, who worked so well together to quickly arrest the suspect, save Mark’s life, support his family and reassure the local community?