Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have the time to debate Government community funding and support for local pubs. We are fortunate to have so many amazing pubs in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, and they are far more than just a place to have a pint. They are the heart and soul of our towns and villages, bringing people together and enriching daily life. They provide jobs and a sense of community, and they even support our local farmers and producers by selling their goods. Sadly, we have lost many pubs in recent years, with ever-increasing costs and rising taxes pushing them to closure. Every loss is felt in the community, diminishing social cohesion and shrinking our local economy. Pubs contributed more than £34.4 billion to the UK economy in 2024 and paid more than £17.4 billion in tax, despite the tight margins they operate on. Just as many households have struggled with high energy bills and inflation, so too have pubs, which are still feeling the residual effects of lockdowns during the pandemic and the change in consumer behaviour that came with them. They now face increased employer national insurance contributions and business rates on top of everything else.

• 7 May 2025 · Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing today’s important debate on tackling the barriers to educational opportunity faced by young people in semi-rural areas. This issue touches communities across the country, including parts of my constituency, so I am pleased that we are in Westminster Hall giving it the attention it deserves. I have certainly felt that, for too long, much of the discussion around educational disadvantage has focused to a large extent on inner cities. While there are undeniable challenges in urban settings, that somewhat narrow framing has obscured the realities faced by young people growing up in less densely populated areas. On the surface, rural and semi-rural pupils appear to perform well, often even outperforming their urban counterparts in headline attainment measures, but averages can be deceptive. Recent research from the University of Exeter has shown that when the data is disaggregated, a very different picture emerges. Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in rural and semi-rural communities actually do worse—sometimes significantly worse—than similarly disadvantaged pupils in urban areas. At GCSE level, the attainment gap can be as high as eight percentage points. We also need to be honest about the practical barriers that young people in semi-rural communities face—barriers that, while often not obvious to central Government, are plain to see for anyone who has spent time listening to families, school leaders or employers in these areas. The first and arguably the most pressing, which has been repeatedly raised today, is transport. The lack of affordable reliable public transport comes up again and again in conversations with headteachers, apprenticeship providers and young people themselves. The result is that some young people simply cannot take up the opportunities that exist, whether that is a college course in the next town, a part-time job or a work placement that would open doors. Employers, too, are feeling the strain, reporting that inadequate public transport limits their ability to recruit young staff. That is simply not good enough. No less important is solid digital infrastructure. In 2025, it should go without saying that high-speed broadband is a basic educational necessity, yet across pockets of semi-rural England, people still struggle to access reliable internet at home. During the pandemic, when learning moved online, that digital divide was laid bare, but it did not begin there and it has not gone away. Even now, slow speeds and patchy connections undermine students’ ability to complete homework, access the virtual tutoring used by their peers and easily apply for jobs and apprenticeships. The failure to deliver truly universal digital access is becoming a core driver of poorer outcomes in rural and semi-rural education. The third barrier relates to choice and proximity. In many semi-rural areas, the number of local education providers is limited, as we have heard today. That can mean fewer subject options at A-level, less availability of vocational and technical qualifications and more pressure on local schools to stretch resources across a wide catchment. Whereas a student in a city might have a dozen sixth-form or college options within easy reach, a student in a rural town might face a daily bus journey of more than an hour each way, if the bus runs at all. Schools and colleges everywhere are feeling the strain on their budgets, but for smaller settings in semi-rural communities the financial pressure is acute. The Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions has added costs to education budgets. For a teacher earning £40,000, the combination of national insurance and teachers’ pension scheme changes means an additional cost of nearly £3,000 per year per staff member. The reality is that semi-rural schools and colleges are often the most vulnerable to cuts. Their smaller size limits economies of scale, their geographical isolation makes recruitment more difficult and their budgets are less buffered by reserves or alternative income streams. When costs go up and funding falls short, they feel it first and they feel it hardest, and it will have an impact on the most vulnerable students. In many semi-rural areas, students face a stark lack of choice as to further education and skills pathways post 16. The push for T-levels and other reforms has not been matched by the transport funding or delivery infrastructure needed to make them a realistic option outside urban centres. The promise of parity between academic and technical routes is laudable, but is hollow if it depends on travel that students cannot afford or on opportunities that do not exist locally. I ask the Minister: what is the strategy to ensure that young people in semi-rural areas can access the full range of educational opportunities, regardless of where they live? Where is the investment in transport links, digital infrastructure and sustainable funding settlements for small schools? When it comes to education, geography should never be destiny. We believe that every child, whether they have grown up in a city suburb, in a coastal town or in a rural village, should have access to a high-quality education that allows them to thrive. Despite our policy differences, I know that the Minister shares that aspiration. This has been an extremely valuable debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford for securing it. I will speak no longer, because we all want to hear from the Minister.

• 7 May 2025 · Automotive Manufacturing: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  Thanks to everyone who has attended this important debate today, particularly the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who I thank for their powerful speeches. It is so clear how much they care about JLR and what it brings to their constituencies. I am grateful to them for coming along and providing more on the manufacturing piece, which is not in my constituency. It was really good to hear that from them. What came through is that tariffs are the big and urgent issue right now. Clearly, getting that deal must be the No. 1 priority. Obviously, energy costs are also an issue, and all of us here today have spoken about them. I was struck by the fact, which the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned, that Nissan’s plant is the most expensive to run in the world due to energy costs. That in itself should be a massive wake-up call. For the medium to long-term success of the automotive industry—and all manufacturing throughout the country —we clearly need to address that. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for the excellent questions raised. A lot of us are asking the same questions, which is really helpful. I was not sure whether there would be anyone else in the room with the same view on the ZEV mandate as me. I was heartened to hear—funnily enough, from the same side of the room—that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) is also sceptical about whether that is the right approach. I appreciate that the Government are trying to make that work as best as they can, and to make the adjustments. Lastly, I thank the Minister for a clear, constructive and logical response. I am grateful that they have gone through and addressed all the concerns raised. I am reassured that they are looking into those. I acknowledge that the India deal may well be beneficial for the automotive industry, because the cost of employing those people will be lower, but we also need to think more broadly about that, because we could disincentivise the recruitment of local residents. The deal needs to be viewed through a wider-angle lens, and those concerns need to be considered too. I thank everyone for attending this important debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for employment in the automotive manufacturing sector.

• 7 May 2025 · Automotive Manufacturing: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member on the importance of supporting businesses. We must make sure that we remove obstacles and barriers that hinder growth. I hope that conversation starts today and that we can get to a better place where we support our amazing automotive industry, which delivers so much for this country, including Northern Ireland. Energy costs must come down. The industry cannot manufacture at a competitive cost with energy costs being so high compared with what other countries pay. We must not shoot ourselves in the foot with a net zero obsession. We must make sensible decisions on the energy mix to ensure energy security and value for money so that our manufacturing industry can compete on the global stage. That means investing in nuclear and not making the mistake of thinking that solar and wind are a silver bullet. I urge the Minister to share her views on how she intends to reduce energy costs for manufacturing industries in the short to long term so that they are better able to compete. I recognise that some of this goes across many briefs, so I appreciate that this is not something over which she has full control. Another important challenge is ensuring that we have a skilled workforce. Research by the Institute of the Motor Industry suggests that around 107,000 additional technicians will be needed by 2030. That is an amazing opportunity for this country. The more the industry grows, the more jobs and opportunity there will be, but we must ensure that we have people here with the skills to take up the jobs to ensure the industry’s success. That is why it is so important to support apprenticeships, which are a great way for young people to gain the skills they need while working. A survey from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in February 2025 found that the UK automotive sector will increase apprenticeship numbers by 16% in 2025, with opportunities spanning manufacturing, supply chain logistics and vehicle maintenance. The most in-demand roles are design and development engineers, EV technicians and specialists in batteries and power electronics. That equates to over 700 new apprenticeships available among UK automakers. I want to take this opportunity to mention East Surrey college in my constituency, which offers full-time and part-time qualifications in vehicle technology, maintenance and electric/hybrid vehicles. I recently visited and was impressed by the expert teachers, the well-equipped workshops with industry standard equipment, and the very talented and engaged students. We must ensure that we provide the right courses so that people with the right skills will be available to fill job opportunities in the industry. East Surrey college is certainly playing its part. I ask the Minister to clarify what the impact of abolishing level 7 apprenticeships will be on the automotive industry and how she plans to mitigate any detriment. Additionally, I urge her to consider how the new Government’s Employment Rights Bill will impact on the automotive industry. In February 2025, a Motor Ombudsman survey found that 58% of businesses reported difficulty in recruiting qualified technicians to meet growing workload, and that those difficulties would be made worse by the Employment Rights Bill, which is causing businesses to re-evaluate their hiring strategies. It is vital that the UK remains competitive and that the industry is not further burdened when it already faces so many challenges. It is clear that the rise in employer national insurance contributions is putting additional pressure on the automotive industry, with a cost of £200 million. The increased cost of doing business in the UK will reduce inward investment, economic growth and ultimately jobs. The Institute of the Motor Industry stated: “These changes are likely to have a significant impact on costs for small businesses that operate in the automotive sector, which is already facing a skills gap of 20,000+ vacancies.” It went on to say that the additional costs will “dampen investment in training and continuous professional development”. If the Government are really committed to boosting job opportunities and growth in the automotive sector, they need to reflect on some of their recent policies. Just saying that growth is a priority does not make it so. They need policies that do not put obstacles in the way. Lastly, I want to raise the challenge of taxation. In the interests of time I will not speak in detail, but the automotive industry has raised concerns about recent announcements on proposals to ban employee car ownership schemes and changes to capital allowances and benefit-in-kind treatment for double-cab pick-up vehicles. The SMMT is concerned that those changes will “undermine the market, hit profitability and viability and have serious consequences for UK tax returns, automotive OEMs and their employees, and sole trader/small business operations.” Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to remove or adjust the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement? That is enough from me for now. I will bring my comments to a close so that anyone else who wishes to contribute has the time to do so. I thank all hon. Members for attending the debate and showing their support for the automotive industry.

• 7 May 2025 · Automotive Manufacturing: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for employment in the automotive manufacturing sector. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The automotive industry is an important part of the UK economy, contributing £93 billion in turnover and £22 billion in value added. It invests around £4 billion each year in research and development and employs around 0.8 million people across the wider industry. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paid jobs, of which a considerable proportion are outside London and the south-east, but I am pleased to say that some of these high-value jobs are in the south-east, in places like my constituency of Reigate. In Burgh Heath, just down the road from Epsom, we find the UK headquarters of Toyota. It is not only one of the biggest employers in the local area; it is also an eco-HQ. In a project that started in 2014, Toyota partnered with Kew royal botanic gardens and the Surrey Wildlife Trust to create a landscaped oasis full of native species from the surrounding countryside, complete with an orchard and meadow. It is wonderful to see a business taking the time and energy to ensure its HQ fits into our special corner of Surrey. And it does not stop there. Outside the site, Toyota has supported many local initiatives, from providing rooms for community meetings to providing buses for local groups and charities. In 2024, more than £40,000 in grants were given to support the work of local groups, including, to name just a few: the Brigitte Trust; Home-Start Epsom, Ewell and Banstead; St Catherine’s hospice; and Warren Mead school parents and friends association. Before I talk more broadly about the automotive industry, I want to take the opportunity to thank Toyota GB for its significant contribution to the Banstead, Burgh Heath and Epsom area. The automotive industry is important to this country and our economy, and it is vital that it is not smothered by over-regulation, over-taxation and green initiatives. Only by creating an environment that is conducive to growth will we see the creation of more high-quality jobs. UK car and commercial vehicle production saw a significant decline of 11.6% in February 2025. Worryingly, that marks the 12th consecutive month of declining car production. This must be an important wake-up call. More must be done to protect the automotive industry we already have, to help it grow and to encourage inward investment in new plants and new technologies. It can only continue to create new jobs and innovative technologies with growth-supporting policies. The automotive industry accounts for over 12% of total UK goods exports, generating £115 billion of trade in total automotive imports and exports. Eight out of 10 cars produced in the UK are exported overseas to 140 different countries, but automotive manufacturers now face additional US tariff costs of around £1.9 billion, which will have a significant and detrimental impact on the industry. The USA is the UK’s second largest car export market after the EU, with exports of over 101,000 units in 2024. These tariffs have material implications for competitiveness, investment and export potential, and it is vital that the Government’s policymaking reflects this new protectionist and uncertain environment. With this massive setback to the industry, it is now even more important that we get things right domestically, to create an environment that stimulates growth for this important industry. I want to raise some of the biggest challenges here in the UK, and I ask the Minister to confirm her plans to address them. In simple terms, for an industry to thrive, it needs to be able to manufacture products at competitive cost, employ people with the skills it needs, have free access to a market for its products without barriers or restrictions, and not be taxed to high heaven, so that it can reinvest in innovation and growth. A good product will always do well. If it is something someone needs, if it provides value for money and if it makes their life easier, they will buy it—it really is that straightforward—so let us talk about the zero emission vehicle mandate challenge first. The ZEV mandate sets out the proportion of new zero emission cars and vans that manufacturers are required to produce each year up to 2030: 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans sold in Great Britain must be electric vehicles by 2030, increasing to 100% by 2035. Part of the reason for introducing this policy was to provide investment certainty for the charging sector to expand the network, given that lack of charging points is one of the things that puts consumers off buying an electric car. There can be no doubt that it is a well-intentioned policy, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Notably, the moving of goalposts by Governments of various colours in recent years has been deeply unhelpful. The previous Government made the decision to delay the ban on new diesel and petrol cars by five years, from 2030 to 2035, whereas the new Government have reversed that. Putting aside the question of which position is the correct one, such chopping and changing is not fair on the automotive industry, which needs certainty and consistency so that it can deliver what is expected of it while still growing its businesses. I do, however, recognise the Government’s recent announcement about increasing the flexibility of the ZEV mandate, which is welcomed by the industry and shows that the Government are listening. In particular, I welcome the reduction in fines for missing targets and the allowance for all forms of hybrid cars until 2035. However, I would suggest that the whole approach in this area needs to be reconsidered as a priority. Tinkering is not enough. The ZEV mandate targets are incredibly challenging for businesses to meet. It makes no sense to expect businesses to dictate what products their customers should buy, when we all know that consumer preference and need should drive the products that a business sells, and rightly so. In 2025, ZEV sales will need to increase by 43% for cars and 171% for vans for automotive businesses to achieve the mandate targets. That is not achievable, and a fine of £12,000 per vehicle is levied on those businesses for every missed EV sale. The automotive industry cannot win on this one. Consumers are not ready to buy EVs yet, because of the lack of charging infrastructure, the battery range issues and the cost, but the automotive businesses will be held responsible and expected to pay the price. If we continue in that way, we will see contraction of the industry, plant closures and job losses, all in the name of net zero. That has already started, with Vauxhall owner Stellantis announcing plans to close a van factory in Luton that employs around 1,100 people. The industry has already invested billions in bringing more than 130 ZEV models to market. Despite spending some £4.5 billion in market support for EVs in 2024, it still missed last year’s target by some way. Such a level of support from industry is unsustainable and is diverting resources away from investment in new technology, models, plants, and research and development. I urge the Government to take responsibility for their role in delivering charging infrastructure and lowering energy costs, rather than beating businesses over the head for their own failings. I also urge the Minister to review the mandate targets as soon as possible and to consider other, more effective ways of driving growth in EV take-up. It would make much more sense to incentivise consumers, rather than penalising businesses. The ZEV mandate targets cannot magically drive demand out of thin air. What we need is more carrot and less stick. Has the Minister considered such alternative options as reducing the VAT on EV sales and public charging, or offering plug-in grants for cars? Those could be straightforward and effective ways of boosting consumer demand. If the Government are wedded to the current draconian ZEV mandate approach, the fair thing would be for them to commit to delivering public charging infrastructure on equivalent targets. For example, in 2025 the target is for 28% of new car sales to be electric, so the Government must ensure there are sufficient public charging points across the UK to serve those new EVs by the end of 2025. If the Government fail to do that, the shortfall should be offset against the fines levied on the automotive industry, reducing what it has to pay. Surely that is fairer. The Government need to play their role and must also be held to account when they do not deliver. Before moving on, I want to touch on domestic energy prices, which apply to all manufacturing industries, not just automotive.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Access to Sport: PE in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s important debate on access to sport and physical education in schools. I thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate, and all hon. Members here for speaking about this vital issue, which cuts across our approach to education, health, mental wellbeing and social mobility. At its heart, physical education is about giving every child, regardless of background, the chance to lead a healthy, active life, while learning important life skills such as teamwork, resilience, perseverance and respect for others. Sport is about so much more than just being healthy. It creates opportunity and can transform lives. Indeed, many of our country’s most famous sporting heroes began their athletic journey while still at school. Olympic champion Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill wrote about the positive impact that sport had on her: “Playing sport as a child helped me enormously. I met lots of different people, both teammates and competitors and faced new challenges. The camaraderie and support that you get from sport massively helped build my confidence and my ability to overcome setbacks and defeats both on and off the track.” It is precisely because sport has the power to do so much good that Conservative Members worked so hard to make real, measurable progress on improving access to sport and PE in our schools when we were in government. Let me start with what we did. The last Conservative Government took a clear stand in favour of equal access to sport for all children, girls and boys alike. In March 2024, the Department for Education published new guidance for schools, making it clear that boys and girls must be offered the same sports, both during curriculum PE and in extra-curricular activities. For too long, some pupils have missed out because of outdated or inflexible provision, and that is no longer acceptable. Our new standards ensure that opportunity in school sport is not determined by sex; it is driven by fairness, aspiration, and choice. That guidance followed the success of the Football Association’s #LetGirlsPlay campaign, which aimed to change perceptions and ensure that girls got the chance to play football as part of the school curriculum, as well as at break time, after school, and at local clubs. It has proved very successful; much larger numbers of girls are playing football, inspired by our amazing Lionesses, following their success at the Euro 2022 tournament. But that is not all we did. Our 2023 school sport and activity action plan set out the clear expectation that schools would provide a minimum of two hours of PE per week. We took that step because we know that exercise is not a luxury or an optional extra. It is fundamental to children’s physical health, mental wellbeing, and ability to focus and succeed in the classroom. In addition to considering what happens during school hours, we took decisive action to boost participation across the country. In August 2023, we launched our Get Active strategy, which provided for a new national taskforce, including Government officials, education experts and former sports professionals. The taskforce was given the bold mission of getting 2.5 million more adults and 1 million more children physically active by 2030. Those serious ambitions were backed by serious actions, and they reflected a long-term strategic commitment from the last Conservative Government to increasing participation, promoting inclusion, and tackling the root causes of inactivity. I do not pretend for one moment that the job is done. There is more to do, but I am proud of our record in this field. However, I regret to say that there has been fallout from this Government’s Budget. We are seeing evidence that the decision to end business rates relief for independent schools is having damaging consequences. Some such schools now question whether they can continue to operate community sports facilities, including school playing fields. Lest we forget, those facilities are used not just by the schools, but by local primary schools, community groups, youth sports teams and families. I see the benefits of that on my doorstep. Many children in my constituency attending local primary schools are learning to swim and getting the benefit of other sports facilities at their local independent school. If this policy ends up forcing the sale or closure of those facilities, it will only have succeeded in reducing access to sports for the very communities who most need it. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to scrap the opening school facilities fund, a programme designed to keep school sports halls and playing fields open over the holidays and outside school hours. That fund enabled schools to support healthy, active lifestyles all year round, not just during term time. In addition, will the Minister end the uncertainty and finally confirm the Government’s plans for the School Games network, which is set to end this year? The network supports 2.2 million participation opportunities for children and is hugely valuable. Will she confirm that that has not been scrapped as well? I want to take a moment to recognise the importance of access to sport for disabled young people, as powerfully set out by the hon. Members for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). It is vital that barriers to inclusion are removed, so that disabled young people can benefit in the same way as all other children in school. I cannot speak about the importance of sport without touching on the subject of sex. The concerning trend of gender ideology threatens to undermine efforts to promote sport among young women and girls. Let me be clear: it is bodies that play sport, not feelings. In women and girls’ sports, participants must be separated by sex, not only for safety reasons but for fundamental fairness. Former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies MBE has been warning about the negative impact of this issue on women’s sport for many years, and it is important that she and other advocates for women are listened to. I urge the Minister to ensure that, as soon as possible, we finalise and issue the draft guidance for schools and colleges on gender-questioning children, which was prepared under the last Conservative Government, and which makes it clear that sports participants should be split by sex. Until we act to address the rise in environments where young female athletes feel unsafe or simply cannot ever win, how can we feign surprise when girls are less inclined to participate in sports? The Conservatives believe that access to sport and PE is a fundamental part of good education for boys and girls. We believe that children should be given the tools to live healthy, active lives, and that sport builds confidence, resilience and teamworking skills, not just health and fitness. Those are beliefs that we put into practice in Government, through new equality standards, mandated PE entitlement and a joined-up national strategy, and by allocating funds to widen access to facilities. That is how we build a healthier, fairer and more active future for every child in this country. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will seek to ensure access to sport, and to her responses to all the excellent questions asked by Members, including mine.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I will in a moment. Such a reform could begin by addressing the unacceptable lack of transparency around the student loan system. The public have a right to know how the system is operating, who is borrowing, who is repaying, and where there may be a risk of fraud or misuse. I understand that a paper on this very subject, compiled by the IFS and commissioned by the last Government, remains unpublished, despite efforts to obtain it via freedom of information requests. I hope the Minister will explain why that is the case, and will understand that transparency builds trust, while withholding data only fuels suspicion. On a related theme, questions have rightly been asked about the eligibility criteria for student loans, particularly for non-UK nationals and EU citizens with settled status. It is surprising to many that, even several years after Brexit, more than 180,000 individuals were granted settled status in the first six months under this Government. That figure deserves scrutiny, and it is legitimate to query the implications for access to taxpayer-funded support for accessing higher education. It has been widely reported that the Student Loans Company is now accepting a mere certificate of application for settled status in order to approve loans. If that is the case, I urge Ministers to review that policy as a matter of urgency. We must ensure that eligibility checks are robust and that the system is not open to exploitation.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this important debate, which could not be more timely, and I am grateful to all colleagues who have contributed. Our universities are among the most important institutions in our national life. They are centres of research, innovation and learning, and for many thousands of young people every year, they are the route to opportunity, economic independence and personal growth. Despite its great importance, the higher education sector has come under increasing pressure in recent years. The latest modelling from the Office for Students suggests that nearly three quarters of English higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26, and 40% would have fewer than 30 days’ liquidity. Indeed, as we have heard from many Members today, redundancy programmes are already under way in some institutions and, across the country, university staff are understandably anxious about the future. I will say at the outset that I am deeply sympathetic to those who work in institutions that have found themselves in financial difficulty. Nevertheless, I believe it is past time for us to have a grown-up conversation about university finances, in which we look seriously at what is driving the pressures and what it might be possible to do to alleviate them. I will begin by stating the obvious: decisions taken in recent years have increased the financial pressure on students and graduates, without necessarily addressing the deeper questions of value and sustainability. We have seen steady rises in student loan interest rates and tuition fees, which both fall heavily on students, and now, the spike in employer national insurance contributions is putting further cost pressures on universities. Meanwhile, the Government’s proposals to cut funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which are essential qualifications in a number of fields, including education, health and engineering, risk further undermining key parts of the post-18 education ecosystem. Many university departments rely on that funding not just to sustain course provision, but to attract and retain highly qualified staff. The impact of the cuts will not be evenly spread, and it is right that we consider how they will affect institutions already under financial pressure.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to continue because of the time. On the concerns about the quality of some higher education provision, the Government have said they are considering changes to the regulation of franchise providers, some of which have been implicated in cases of poor-quality provision and potential fraud. Although I welcome the consultation launched by the Department for Education, I caution that many of the largest franchise providers are already regulated by the Office for Students, so the key question is not simply whether they are regulated, but how well the regulatory framework is working and whether it is actually driving up standards. Finally, we have heard Ministers speak in recent months about “tweaking” the role of the Office for Students to strengthen its focus on value for money. In September, the Department said that it was “developing options for legislative change,” and the Secretary of State has since re-announced that commitment, but as far as I can tell no tangible progress has been made. When will we actually see legislation brought forward? We have also heard mention of the Public Sector Fraud Authority being brought in, but that sounds remarkably similar to the Internal Audit Agency investigation mentioned in last year’s National Audit Office report. What is changing, exactly? Are we simply hearing the same announcement robed in new language? I conclude by emphasising that the largest losses to the taxpayer do not always come from outright criminal fraud, and can come from legally operating institutions that provide poor value. These providers operate within the letter of the law, but not within its spirit. They enrol students on low-value courses with high drop-out rates and weak earnings potential, while drawing down large sums from the student loan system—sums that in many cases will never be repaid. We cannot continue like this. Our goal should be a higher education system that is sustainable, high quality and genuinely life-changing. I look forward to continuing this discussion in the months ahead.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I suggest to the hon. Member that we need to deal with the situation that we have now, and that her questions should be targeted towards the Minister. We should make the right decisions to do the right thing for our country, and for our students and university staff. We must confront an uncomfortable truth: there is mounting evidence, including from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that a sizeable share of higher education courses simply do not provide good value for money either for the taxpayer or for the individual student. The IFS has concluded that around 30% of graduates, both men and women, would have been better off financially had they not gone to university at all. That raises important questions about how we can ensure that our higher education system delivers for those who fund it—namely, the students who invest years of their lives and take on significant debt, and the public whose taxes support the student loan system. The current funding model is failing under the enormous weight of rapid expansion, marketisation and insufficient quality controls. The ability of an institution to prop itself up on the backs of overseas students who pay vast fees is coming to an end. Although fee income from international students has grown by an average of 15% a year between 2017 and 2023, the recent international recruitment environment has been challenging. Recent Home Office data indicates that 393,125 visas were issued to main applicants in 2024. That is down 13.9% year on year and down 18.8% compared with two years ago. While some institutions have embraced innovation, strong outcomes and world-class research, others have pursued growth at all costs, adding courses with limited market value, often to attract overseas students or to maximise short-term income. We cannot and should not return to a time when university was accessible only to a wealthy minority, but we do need to have a serious conversation about the purpose of higher education, who it is for, and how it can be sustainably funded in a way that delivers for students, taxpayers and the wider economy. That means looking at systemic reform, rather than simply demanding that young people pay more without addressing the underlying issues. We need to examine course quality, graduate outcomes, student choice, and the role of further education and apprenticeships alongside traditional degrees.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to some of that, and it goes back to my belief that there should be a degree of separation. I think it should be separate from normal healthcare services and there are multiple ways that we could do that. I regret that we are not specifically debating the various different options, with a proposal in front of us detailing exactly how it would work. I am assuming, from the new clause put forward, that the proposal is for this to go through the NHS as healthcare; that is the only assumption I can make based on what is in front of me in this Bill, because there is no other detail to give me any other impression. Sarah Davies, a consultant respiratory physician in north Wales, argues for a separate service so that ordinary NHS care is not associated with assisted dying. She said: “It is already my experience that patients and their families are anxious about limiting treatment when they are dying. Many people believe that symptom control medication, such as those delivered in a syringe-driver to aid symptom control amount to hastening or bringing on death. This perception can hinder the patient’s acceptance of medications which can afford significant alleviation of distressing symptoms.” I have raised my concerns about providing an assisted dying service alongside and in conjunction with day-to-day healthcare many times over the last few weeks. I think it is a massive mistake both for patients and healthcare staff. It blurs the lines of what a treatment is, increases the risk of bad decisions and, as we heard so powerfully from Dr Jamilla Hussain, it will discourage some of the most vulnerable groups from seeking essential healthcare. We have received so much evidence and it is really important that we take it on board, so I will be quoting some in my speech. Dr Green of the BMA said: “It should be set up through a separate service with a degree of separation. We believe that is important for patients, because it would reassure patients who may be anxious about the service that it would not just be part of their normal care… It would reassure doctors, because doctors who did not want to have any part would not feel that it was part of their normal job, whereas the doctors who wanted to go ahead would be assured of having support, emotional support and proper training.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 45, Q32.] In oral evidence, Professor Preston argued for a separate system and pointed to the Swiss example. She said: “In covid, we did research in care homes, and there was real concern about ‘do not resuscitate’ orders and emergency care plans that were blanketed across the care homes. Care home staff were traumatised by that, so there are real issues. We know that there are real issues day to day in how people are treated within the NHS. I think it is unconscious—I do not think people are intending it—but we know that people are treated differently and that different things are done. That is partly why we think a system outside that would protect them, because then you are not within the healthcare team that is treating you and giving you advice about such things”. She went on to talk about the Swiss system, also being adopted in Germany and Austria, which seeks to “protect these people by keeping it one step removed” from normal healthcare. She said: “Most hospitals in Switzerland will not allow assisted dying to occur, because they do not want a lack of trust in their patient group.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 246, Q317.] I therefore support amendment 525, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would amend clause 32 in order not to allow the provision of the assisted dying service to be done through the health service. That would ensure that much-needed degree of separation. In light of what the Bill’s promoter has said, I recognise that there are different ways to do that; I am very open to those different ways, but I need to see that degree of separation from normal healthcare. I also support new amendment (a) to new clause 36, also tabled by my hon. Friend, which does the same thing. Let me come to the other amendments in this group. Amendments 537 and 528, tabled by the hon. Members for Shipley and for Richmond Park respectively, are important to debate—we have had some good debate on them this morning—as they raise the different ways of delivering an assisted dying service. I have been listening closely to the points made. Amendment 537 would limit the provision of an assisted death to charities rather than to the NHS, and conversely, amendment 528 would limit provision to public authorities only. I do not have the answer on the best way to do this, and that is why I regret that a royal commission has not been set up to properly investigate and evaluate all the options and recommend the best way forward. Instead, we are here without all the relevant information and expertise available to us, trying to land on the best way to do it. That is not the way to make such an important decision. I can tell the Committee, however, that—like many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire—I have huge reservations about delivering such a service through the NHS alongside normal healthcare. I agree with much of the evidence that has already been cited: there should be a degree of separation. The BMA said that assisted dying could be part of the NHS, but should be outside existing care pathways and separate in some way: “Our view is that assisted dying should not be part of the standard role of doctors or integrated into existing care pathways—it is not something that a doctor can just add to their usual role… The separate service could take the form of a professional network of specially trained doctors from across the country who have chosen to participate, who come together to receive specialised training, guidance, and both practical and emotional support. They would then provide the service within their own locality—for example, in the patient’s usual hospital, or their home. Or it could be a combination of some specialist centres and an outreach facility.” In its written evidence, the Royal College of General Practitioners also proposed a separate service: “The establishment of a separate service which covered every stage of the process would ensure healthcare professionals of multiple disciplines (including GPs) who wanted to do so could still opt in to provide assisted dying, but this would be arranged through a different pathway.” I agree with both bodies that the service should be separated out in some way. It is now apparent that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), whose amendments would have created an assisted dying agency, was on the right track. I regret that the Committee did not explore his ideas in any real detail during our proceedings. We received important written evidence from Robert Twycross, a pioneer of palliative care who sadly died in October, but had given his friend Ariel Dempsey permission to submit it. Dr Dempsey writes: “Twycross recommends a de-medicalized model in which AD is a separate service, delivered outside of healthcare practice. He argues for a standalone Department for Assisted Dying, separate from the NHS. He writes, ‘Data indicate that the primary reason for a persistent desire for AD is to relieve distress over a perceived loss of autonomy and to experience a sense of personal control over the circumstances of their dying. These are not medical reasons. Thus, for patients fulfilling the legal criteria, a separate AD service should be established. Indeed, this would be the best way to prevent a corrosive effect on medical practice generally.’ ‘Given the widespread disquiet felt by doctors, a law with minimal medical involvement would be the most equitable.’ He suggests, ‘One way to achieve this would be for [AD] to be delegated to a stand-alone Department for Assisted Dying, completely separate from the NHS and with its own budget. Victoria almost achieves this with its combination of Care Navigators, mandatory training for participating doctors, and a separate Voluntary Assisted Dying Statewide Pharmacy Service.’ Twycross emphasizes that hospice and palliative care must be a ‘sanctuary’ for patients – ‘an assisted dying free zone. Even in the absence of AD, some people decline referral to palliative care despite unrelieved pain and/or other distressing symptoms because they fear they will be “drugged to death”…This unfounded fear will most likely be enhanced if AD is legalized, particularly if palliative care is involved’ and result in an overall increase in suffering.”

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would make the advertising of services by a co-ordinating and/or independent doctor by a person in the course of a business an offence with a sentence of up to two years in prison or a fine or both. As we have discussed previously, we will likely see private provision of assisted dying services, if the Bill is approved. That will create a potentially lucrative opportunity for private businesses, particularly if provision on the NHS is not consistent across the country or is overwhelmed. “Advertising” means the techniques used to bring attention to a product or service with the aim of presenting it as something a potential customer might need or want. The overarching aim of advertising by a business is to ultimately sell more of a product or service. We must keep that overarching reason in mind when considering the amendment. It would be incredibly inappropriate for such services to be advertised on billboards, public transport or daytime telly, targeting those who may be approaching the end of their life, with ads run repeatedly along with those for stairlifts and life insurance. Such advertising could also undermine our national suicide prevention strategy by normalising suicide in certain situations. It becomes much harder to say to people that suicide is not the answer if we are content to say that it is in certain situations. I can only imagine some of the difficult conversations that could be generated from an advert seen by a young girl or boy already battling with suicidal thoughts. How does a parent or guardian explain why suicide is not right for them? Imagine the potential impact on men, too. As we all know, suicide is a leading cause of death in men in this country. In 2022, for males between the ages of 20 and 34, one in four deaths was categorised as “intentional self-harm” or “event of undetermined intent”. That is a shocking statistic. That is why banning the advertising of such services is so important.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire eloquently covered most of the things I would have said. We have probably not spoken enough to date about the impact on pharmacists, but we are getting to the point in the Bill where it is really important that we take on board the written evidence and feedback that we are hearing from them. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said: “In dispensing a prescription, a pharmacist assumes a proportion of the responsibility for that prescription and therefore must be assured that all legal requirements are in place and that it is entirely appropriate for the patient. The link to the clinical assessment of eligibility criteria is essential and therefore the prescriber should always be one of the assessors. In addition to the usual practice of checking that the prescription fulfils the necessary legal requirement, pharmacists must have full access to the patient’s diagnosis and assisted dying care plan.” That raises a few valid and interesting points that we need to take on board to ensure that pharmacists can do their jobs in line with the regulations and laws they are subject to, which are ultimately there to maintain patient safety. I support amendment 466, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would ensure that the Secretary of State must be of the opinion that there is scientific consensus that the drug is effective without causing pain. I am of the view that the Secretary of State is probably the right place for that responsibility to sit. One reason for that, which my hon. Friend spoke about, is that I am not sure that the MHRA is the right regulating body for that. I am no expert on this, and I am open to hearing the debate, but the MHRA’s remit covers medicines and healthcare products, so there is a question about whether legally the responsibility falls to it. If it does not, do we set up another body, or do we adjust its remit so that it is covered? I have reservations about doing anything that would merge assisted dying into normal healthcare, but I have laid that out many times over the weeks, so I will not go over that. My understanding is that, on top of all the things my hon. Friend set out, the MHRA’s role is to give marketing authorisation for the promotion and advertising of medicine. Once that has been given, reams of regulations and compliance must be done, including in respect of the labelling of medicine. I believe it would have to be put on packaging that a medicine could be used for assisted dying. We need to get clarity on that from experts in the field, so that we fully understand it. If that is the case, how do we feel about making it clear that said medicines, potentially out in the market, could be used for assisted dying? I suggest there could be some significant downsides to such clear labelling. That is something for us all to think about. I wanted to raise those important points.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend and am sure I will come to his point. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said about the definition of “assistance” in clause 23. If this legislation is to genuinely respect the preferences of doctors and other professionals, it is essential that “assistance” is read as including the matters in amendment 480 covering non-medical practitioners, too. I support that amendment, and what I am going to say is based on its definition of “assistance”. My amendment, it is important to say, works both ways. A care home or hospice can state that all employees must be willing to assist. We agreed to amendment 341, which allows individuals to opt out on conscience grounds. My amendment 481 gives institutions and organisations the same latitude. It opens the way to three kinds of institution: those that provide assisted dying as a matter of policy, those that will not provide it as a matter of policy, and those with no fixed policy, where some employees will assist and some will not. All those different approaches should be respected and supported. The legal basis for this is found in schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, which allows an employer to specify a “genuine occupational requirement”. A company can require a particular protected characteristic, as long as it is a work-related requirement and the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Equality and Human Rights Commission gives an example: a humanist organisation that promotes humanist philosophy and principles would probably be able to apply an occupational requirement for its chief executive to be a humanist. In this case, an organisation providing end-of-life care and with a blanket policy in either direction would not be found in breach of the Equality Act’s protection of beliefs. In healthcare, there is the obvious precedent of abortion. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, as an abortion provider, is allowed to specify that employees must support its position. Without this amendment, we are looking at a legal and ethical minefield. If a hospice has a policy of helping with assisted dying requests and a staff member refuses to refer a patient to a doctor, can that staff member be sacked, or are they protected by clause 23? Surely we want to avoid the situation arising in the first place, by ensuring that employers can make clear their requirements on this front at the hiring stage. Conversely, what if a hospice has a policy of not participating in assisted dying? Many hospices may want to have such a policy, to reassure their patients on this front and provide a safe space for those who need it. In written evidence, Rowcroft hospice says: “Some patients may fear discussing pain and suffering in case assisted dying is suggested as an option.” According to an article in Annals of Palliative Medicine , this is a major concern in Oregon. One nurse is quoted as saying: “there’s all this advice about how to get information on Death with Dignity…already there is an attitude among many of our clients that ‘if I go into hospice, they’re going to kill me because that’s what a hospice does’”. Likewise, a healthcare professional in Australia is cited in one study as saying: “It’s affecting us in palliative medicine, more than we would like and more than it should because of the assumption that because we specialise in end-of-life care therefore, this is for us. And so, the general perception amongst medical practitioners, the health community and the general public is that this is our thing. And so, for a lot of us, we’re saying, no, this is not our thing.” Clearly, some hospices will want to have an explicit policy that assisted dying is not their thing, and they should have the right to do that. But what if an employee at that kind of hospice wants to help a patient with the assisted dying process? What if, for instance, a hospice doctor volunteers to do one of the assessments? That will obviously compromise the hospice’s policy, but are they in breach of the Equality Act 2010 if they only hire doctors who share that institution’s view of assisted dying? Again, without my amendment, it is not clear what the law allows. Amendment 441, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, has a similar aim and would further clarify the legal position for institutions, so I am glad to support that, too. This kind of institutional opt-out is, I believe, standard practice in US states that have adopted assisted dying. California’s law includes the following provision: “a health care entity may prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including health care providers, from participating under” this legislation “while on premises owned or under the management or direct control of that health care entity or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the entity.” There is also a good model in New Zealand, where the High Court has ruled that institutions can opt out. Hospice New Zealand, the organisation representing all hospice services in the country, sought a declaratory judgment because of exactly the kind of confusions that I have described. In its judgment, the High Court of New Zealand agreed that the ambiguity about institutional opt-outs was “causing confusion amongst those involved in palliative care and more generally.” The Court found that New Zealand’s assisted dying law “does not require hospices or other organisations to provide assisted dying services. They are entitled to choose not to provide these services. This does not depend on a hospice or other organisation having a conscientious objection, although that may often be the reason…Hospices or other organisations that choose not to offer assisted dying services may employ or engage health practitioners on the basis that these services are not provided by the hospices or organisations”. As a result, New Zealand hospices can set their own policy on whether to provide assisted dying. Sinéad Donnelly, professor of palliative care at the University of Otago, says that this judgment has proved very helpful to the hospice sector: “this has proven pivotal in retaining staff at hospices, many of whom would no longer be willing to work there if the assisted dying doctor or nurse practitioners were given access to the hospice to end a patient’s life.” Dr Siwan Seaman, a hospice doctor, says in written evidence: “I have liaised with a Medical Director of a hospice in New Zealand…The Medical Director in New Zealand believed that without the organisation-level conscientious objection that the hospice movement in New Zealand would have been under even more strain and look very different now.” Dr Seaman says that if we want the quality of palliative care provision across England and Wales to continue to improve, “the bill has to be amended to allow specialist palliative care services such as hospices to be separated from assisted dying processes.”

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am just making the point that palliative care has deteriorated in jurisdictions that have introduced assisted dying. Therefore, we need to bear that in mind for this country if assisted dying is introduced. This is also about competition for time and resources. One palliative care provider in Ontario has been cited as saying that “when a patient is requesting MAID [Medical Assistance in Dying], most of the resources have been sucked up by that one case and it’s all everyone’s talking about and they’re rushing to get stuff done…everyone from admin down to the bedside nurse is focusing on MAID…And all of the high-quality palliative care that we do falls by the wayside for the other patients.” One academic study found that “in Ontario, some palliative care nurses were tasked with administration and co-ordination of MAiD which has been taking up an increasing proportion of their roles—to the point that nurses have left their jobs because they were not able to provide palliative care.” In oral evidence, Dr Cox also said: “It is unclear how this is going to be funded. It looks as if it is going to be within healthcare, and if so, there will inevitably be competition with other aspects of healthcare, including palliative care, for those limited resources. There are finite numbers of doctors, nurses and side rooms in hospitals. If palliative care and assisted dying were funded from the same pot, I think there would be a massive detrimental effect on palliative care because we would be in competition for a limited resource.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q83.] I have outlined this at length—I thank Members for their patience—because how we vote on these amendments could have enormous consequences for the palliative care sector. At the moment, it is world-leading, but that does not mean there is not huge room for improvement or that it will not be affected by the same pressures as in other jurisdictions. Amendment 481 would institute a common-sense change that the British Medical Association has suggested. New clause 23 would protect the sector from unintended consequences and unfair funding cuts. I urge Members to support both. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Bambos Charalambous.)

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clauses 17 and 21 and to the four associated amendments. There is a lot to say, so please bear with me, but I will do my best not to repeat myself. How exactly will the panel operate and function? I appreciate some of the explanations provided by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the point, but I have concerns about exactly what the panel will do and how it will do it. I will do my best not to repeat what others have said, but I reiterate the concerns as to whether it is indeed a better safeguard than the High Court one that was originally envisaged, given that it will have no full judicial role. On a practical level, I question whether it is even feasible to find sufficient numbers of psychiatrists and social workers who are able and willing to perform this very burdensome role. As we all know, social workers do an incredibly important job, but people with their skillset are in extremely high demand. The hon. Member has made it clear that she is removing the High Court safeguards not because of the capacity concerns raised in oral evidence in January, but because she believes that this is truly a better and safer model. I am also concerned that something that was originally meant to bring judicial oversight into the process has been replaced with something that is not judicial. I welcome more involvement from psychiatrists and social workers, who have a key role to play in the process, but I have concerns about whether the panel is the right place for it. Its expertise would be more valuable earlier in the process, when the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are performing their assessments, rather than at the stage with the legal oversight component. A panel’s involvement in a truly multidisciplinary approach during the clinical stage of the assessment process would have been a gold-standard safeguard, but unfortunately that approach was not put on the face of the Bill. How the panel will operate is an issue of great significance. If we do not flesh out the detail now, when will we? We must have this conversation. I have looked for this information in the new provisions. According to new schedule 2, “The Commissioner may give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.” That is all there is. I cannot see any further information. Disappointingly, it is not even that the commissioner “must” give guidance—it “may”—so the operation of panels may change depending on who is in the role of commissioner. Given that this is a new approach and process, I urge the promoter and the Government to ensure that it is adequately fleshed out to avoid ambiguity. When I imagine the panel, I am not sure what I am supposed to be imagining. Is it an administrative process—three people checking the papers—or is it more like a court, calling in evidence? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Banbury eloquently set out the practical realities of the new provisions with regard to witnesses. According to new clause 21, the panel “must hear from” at least one of the doctors, but it does not need to question him or her, so what is it exactly that the panel is required to hear? What does “hear” mean, and does it cover anything specific? Does it cover all the items in new clause 21(2), or just some? The new clause does not specify. It is the same for the patient. The panel just needs to “hear” from him or her; it does not need to question them. As I will come to shortly, in exceptional cases, even the patient will not need to be heard from. Again, I would be grateful to the Justice Minister for clarity on what “hear” means and what she would expect would be covered. We do know that the panel must be “satisfied” of the relevant matters, yet how it is to be satisfied, and even what that means, is not clear. The only person who must be heard from is either the co-ordinating doctor or the independent doctor—just one person. That may be fine, or it may not, but I put it on the record here, because it is important that we are clear-eyed about it. Compare the process with an employment tribunal. Someone litigating an employment claim would know well in advance the rules that the tribunal would apply, what test the tribunal would apply to the facts, the legal representation they can have, and how and on what basis they can appeal. That kind of clarity is essential, but I cannot find it in the new clause. I also do not know whether the panel is inquisitorial or adversarial.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The right to say, “It’s none of your business” might be fine when no one else is involved, but if someone seeks an assisted death, that involves multiple members of NHS staff. There is an impact on all those people, who need to be comfortable with what they are doing. Maybe the person needs to accept that they do need to provide some information so that the medical staff feel comfortable about the question of eligibility.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Prisons: Urgent Notifications · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that answer. Prison officers do an important job, and I thank every officer at Downview Prison in Banstead. It is extremely concerning that the number of assaults on staff at Downview more than doubled between 2023 and 2024. What steps is he taking to ensure that officers are protected in their day-to-day jobs?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank Surrey police for all they do to keep us safe in Reigate and Banstead. I welcome much of what is in the Bill and I will not repeat what has already been said. Instead, I will focus my remarks on what I believe is required to tackle the scourge of commercial sexual exploitation in this country. It is easy for people to think that sexual exploitation does not affect them and that it does not happen in their neighbourhood, but it is more common than many realise. It is happening behind closed doors on very normal, everyday streets. Sexual exploitation, often of young women, is an awful crime that destroys lives before they have barely had a chance to begin. Exploited repeatedly, day in, day out, those young people are treated as merchandise, with the sole purpose of turning a profit for pimps and traffickers. It is incumbent upon us to break the business model, starting by outlawing the advertising of individuals for prostitution. Classified ad sites, like Vivastreet, are rife with it. They are the Etsy of sexual exploitation, fuelling sex trafficking by providing a convenient centralised platform for sex buyers to access what they want in their local area. Buying sexual services can be as easy as ordering a pizza. Although prostitution is legal, pimping, which is the provision of a prostitute to perform a sex act with a customer for gain, is not. There are often tell-tale signs on the adverts, like the same phone number being used for multiple ads, that the women are not acting freely and willingly, and that they are under the control of a pimp, who is profiting from their exploitation. Such sites have had years to get to grips with it, but still not enough is being done to weed out those adverts. However, we must take some responsibility too. Hon. Members will no doubt be staggered to hear that such advertising of prostitution is entirely legal, because legislation has not kept pace with technology. Advertising prostitution in a phone box is illegal under section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, yet when the same advert is online, it is not illegal. That is utterly absurd. In 2023, the Home Affairs Committee cited evidence in its report on human trafficking that 75% of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are advertised online. The cross-party group concluded: "Websites advertising prostitution significantly facilitate trafficking for sexual exploitation.” I strongly urge Ministers to take this opportunity to close that loophole. There is a similar issue with the regulation of online pornography compared with offline pornography. Our current laws have not been updated quickly enough to recognise the huge shift online and the need to apply the same standards across the board. A survey by the Children’s Commissioner in November 2022 found that one in 10 children had seen pornography by the age of nine, with half having seen it before they turned 13. The impact of that travesty can be clearly seen, with 47% of young people between the ages of 16 and 21 stating that girls “expect” sex to involve aggression. Huge damage is being done to young women and men by this damaging content, which normalises and sexualises the choking and strangling of women during sex—illegal in offline pornography but not online pornography. Although not illegal per se, degrading acts, like spitting on women, are commonplace in online porn, so is it any wonder that we are seeing such disdain for and poor treatment of girls in our society? If we are serious about tackling the issue and halving violence against women and girls, we must crack down on online porn and ensure it is regulated to the same standards as that which is offline. The independent pornography review, led by Baroness Bertin, recommended that there be parity of regulation between online and offline pornography, which I very much welcome. The main statutory regulator of offline pornography is the British Board of Film Classification. It is responsible for classifying pornographic content before it can be published and ensuring it does not contain illegal content. Any such offline illegal content cannot be sold or supplied in the UK, and the same rule should apply online. That simple change could be transformational if effectively executed and properly enforced, although I recognise the technical and practical challenge of trying to regulate the worldwide web. I thank the Secretary of State for listening to my two asks. I look forward to hearing from her whether she is receptive to accepting amendments to ban online prostitution adverts, and to bringing the regulation of online pornography in line with that for offline pornography.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) on securing this important debate, and I commend him for his sustained efforts to drive up the quality and availability of financial education offered to our young people. There is sometimes a tendency in this House—perhaps an understandable one—to gravitate towards short-termism. It is therefore a sincere pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who, along with his colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, has been doing such excellent work to promote reforms that take a longer view and are geared towards boosting the life chances of future generations. Good financial education, delivered not only by schools, but by parents and families and within communities, has the potential to produce a generation wise to the dangers of credit card debt, alert to the practices of predatory payday lenders, and confident in their ability to open a bank account and budget appropriately. I believe that all of us in this place are truly committed to reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has the best possible start in life, and I can think of few better ideas than ensuring that all young people enter adulthood with a sound grasp of how to manage their money. The British public seem to share that assessment. A research survey of UK adults conducted by Santander revealed that a full 70% felt that better financial education in their younger years would have improved their ability to manage their finances through the ongoing cost of living crisis. Meanwhile, two thirds of young people believe that a lack of financial education has played a role in them amassing the debts that they hold. Indeed, it is not just adults but children who are deeply concerned about financial matters. The London Institute of Banking and Finance reported in 2023 that 68% of children worry about money and their personal finances. That figure is hardly surprising when we consider that today’s children are the most digitally exposed in history; they face a constant barrage of offers to spend money in alluring but wasteful ways. Many of the apps downloaded on to the phones that our children spend so much time on are full of shining icons, inviting them to spend real-world money, with the tap of a finger, in exchange for worthless in-game currencies. Young players of online games are prompted to spend, in some cases, hundreds of pounds on loot boxes or so-called cosmetic items—that is, a virtual in-game weapon, or an outfit that is a slightly different colour from the default option. Financial literacy is clearly a skill that our children and young people need, to protect them and prepare them for the future. Although there is undoubtedly still work to be done, I briefly draw the House’s attention to the solid foundations laid by successive Conservative Governments over the past 14 years. After all, the Conservatives left England as one of the top-performing countries in education. Under the Conservative Government, children in England were named the best in the west for reading, and were ranked best at maths in the western world in the 2023 TIMSS—trends in international mathematics and science study. It was a Conservative Government who created the national network of 40 maths hubs to support schools in improving their mathematics teaching. That network is a partnership between schools, colleges and other organisations that work together to provide support for maths teaching in their regions. The positive impact of those hubs on young people’s ability to manage and understand money and finance is obvious. We were clear that we intended to go further: at the last election, we set out a comprehensive plan to ensure that every child studied maths to the age of 18, so that they would leave school with good numeracy skills. That would help them to navigate their finances with confidence. That is not to suggest that the entire burden of providing robust financial education can or should fall upon our schools. As is so often the case, families also have a central role to play in ensuring that children are imbued with good financial common sense. That does not need to be overly complex; simple measures, such as offering children small amounts of weekly pocket money, can help to normalise good habits such as saving and thinking carefully before making purchases. According to an ING survey of 12,000 parents across Europe, giving children pocket money reduces the risk of them getting into debt as adults.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that great contribution to the debate. I agree that all those small things add up and make a difference to our financial literacy. I am a chartered accountant, but that is not what made me financially literate; it was the lessons I was taught by my family, and the jobs that I did when I was young. Members have given great examples of how they came to understand finance. In an increasingly contactless world, it is important that children and young people physically see and feel cash. That is the way in which value is tangibly understood. To return to schools, financial education is not, as has been noted, a statutory part of the national curriculum in primary schools in England, but in contrast, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is very much embedded at primary level. Given the way in which our children are relentlessly pressured to spend money that they may not even have, and in the light of Cambridge University research suggesting that habits and attitudes towards money are formed by the age of seven, there is much logic to the argument that financial education—whether delivered by schools, parents or even community hubs and other organisations—should not wait for the later years, and should be continuous. Teachers also feel that starting good financial education early is important for the future wellbeing of young people. According to a 2020 survey, 82% of primary teachers consider teaching financial education to be very important. We may hear more about that when the Francis review of the national curriculum is complete. I urge the Minister to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked about the Government’s plans for the curriculum. In secondary schools, the picture is somewhat different. In 2014, the then Conservative Government acted to ensure that financial education was placed on a statutory footing in local authority schools. However, the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people—which I once again praise as an outstanding example of everything an APPG should aspire to be—noted in its 2023 “Building Beyond Barriers” report that over half of teachers did not know that financial education was part of the curriculum at all. That is a matter of some concern. It is certainly important that the topic of financial education is addressed in the classroom in an appropriate way. I have no doubt that our hard-working teachers are keen to play their part in delivering that content. The same report found that three in four teachers believed that they should play a leading role in imparting financial skills to children. The obstacles were reported to be inadequate training, limited funding and an understandable feeling that there is simply not sufficient time in the school year to deliver those lessons. In government, the Conservatives sought to mitigate the funding issue with an investment of over £1 million to embed and scale teacher training in financial education. The Money and Pensions Service did excellent work developing and testing approaches to supporting teachers, and practitioners working with children and young people in vulnerable circumstances, to deliver financial education. Ultimately, though, we must acknowledge that the school timetable is already under intense pressure, and there are many competing calls on limited time. That is why I would argue that the good financial education that every child deserves is best delivered not only in schools, but in the family setting, in communities, and with the help of valuable resources. I conclude with a simple message, which I hope underscores some of the excellent contributions that we have heard today: financial education is invaluable and transforms life outcomes. Research undertaken by Compare the Market tells us that today, just two fifths of young adults rank as financially literate. We can and must do better. Conservative Members will keep these matters under careful review, and I hope that the Minister will address the questions that have been raised. Once again, I thank all those who have spoken, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry; I will need to make progress so that the Minister has sufficient time. Crucially, it was a Conservative Government that brought the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 into law, ensuring that all pupils now meet providers of technical education so that they understand the wide range of career routes and training available to them, such as apprenticeships, T-levels or traineeships—not just the traditional academic options. I know that Members will have their own accounts of how this fantastic system is working to nurture and support young people in their constituencies, and we have heard many of them today. I could not miss the opportunity presented by the debate to highlight one of my own. I was recently fortunate enough to visit the UK headquarters of Toyota, located in Burgh Heath, in the Reigate constituency. The visit included the chance to meet and hear from some of the outstanding apprentices working at the company. I was struck by the truly impressive enthusiasm, intelligence and dedication of these young workers. Though still in the early stages of their careers, the apprentices were already making hugely valuable contributions across departments from engineering to finance to marketing. In return, they received experience and training that I have no doubt will leave them in excellent standing for the duration of their working lives. That is an example of apprenticeships done right—an exemplar of what Conservative Governments have been working to enable and support for the last 14 years. It is of real concern that today the very framework that made these apprenticeships, and so many others like them, possible now appears to be in some jeopardy. That jeopardy arises from a Government commitment to replace the apprenticeship levy with a growth and skills levy that will allow firms to spend up to 50% of their levy contributions on non-apprenticeship related training. If we make the plausible assumption that businesses will take maximum advantage of that flexibility, the number of apprenticeships on offer could slump from about 350,000 to just 140,000, a 60% decrease. Of particular concern is that the worst of the impact would be felt by our youngest workers at the very first stages of their careers. If we again assume the full 50% decrease in spending, the number of apprenticeships available to those under the age of 19 would crash to below 40,000. That would be a drop from 106,000 in 2017. I concede that the Government’s intended approach might make some degree of sense if a significant portion of the apprenticeship levy remained unspent and would otherwise be serving no useful purpose. However, this is simply not the case. A full 98% of the apprenticeship budget has been used up over the last two years. That funding has gone to support high-quality, career-boosting apprenticeships of the sort we have been discussing this morning. It is concerning that this commitment risks seeing apprenticeship funding diffuse out into lower value courses, or even seminars and programmes that employers would have offered anyway. That is clearly not in the best interests of our young people, and risks creating a cohort with markedly worse life chances than that which came before. It may well be the case that the Government intend to have their cake and eat it. It would be possible to both allow firms the flexibility to spend 50% of their levy contributions elsewhere and to maintain the current number of apprenticeships, but that could only be achieved with additional Government spending. To maintain the number of apprenticeship starts at the current level—assuming the 50% flexibility on levy spending—the Government would be forced to invest an additional £1.5 billion of new funding. I ask the Minister to provide clarity on the Government’s intentions. Will firms be given 50% discretion to divert funding away from apprenticeships, as was previously announced? If so, will the Government step in with fresh investment to maintain numbers or will they allow our dynamic apprenticeship system to wither? If Ministers intend to intercede, where will the £1.5 billion they need be found? I pose those important questions not to score political points, but because we derive enormous value in this country from the transformative effect of apprenticeships and want to see as many young people benefit from them as possible. With one eye on the clock to ensure the Minister has sufficient time to respond, I will say a brief word on defence. As of November 2023, the Ministry of Defence was the largest single deliverer of apprenticeships in the UK, with over 22,000 personnel engaged on a nationally recognised apprenticeship programme at any one time. In addition, over 95% of our non-commissioned military recruits are offered an apprenticeship after their trade training. That includes schemes with focuses on digital, nuclear, analytics and much more. Apprenticeships are a thread that runs through our armed forces, the Ministry of Defence and those private sector organisations that support both. It is of great importance that in their rush to redefine the way apprenticeships are delivered in this country the Government do not deprive our armed forces of the much-needed talent and capacity that is now nurtured and developed through apprenticeship schemes. I have left the Minister much to address, so will now end where I began, by congratulating the hon. Member for Peterborough on providing us with this valuable opportunity to express our support for, and commitment to, apprenticeships. I wish everyone participating from 10 February a successful National Apprenticeship Week.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an important point about unintended consequences. Does she agree that it is important we consider our key workers, such as NHS staff and police, who rely on accommodation tied to their employment? With the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies, it is important to ensure that provisions are there to support such tenancies, so that they can continue and we can retain and attract much-needed police officers and NHS staff.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Hospitality Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  In Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, we have many amazing pubs that contribute hugely to the economy, such as the Garibaldi community pub in Redhill. For those businesses to thrive, reform of the unfair business rates system by 2026 is critical. Will the Minister commit to the proposed 20p reduction to the small business rate multiplier, which is the absolute minimum reduction needed for the long-term sustainability of the pub sector?

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will impact charities, as well as businesses and GP surgeries? They include the Children’s Trust in Tadworth, in my constituency, which is a leading charity that provides support to children with brain injury. That charity now needs to find an additional significant—