Rebecca Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  In September 2021, Plymstock post office closed. It was part of the collateral damage of the closure by Morrisons of more than 80 newsagents. It was a legitimate business decision no doubt, but it highlights the issue of the post office franchise model. Those businesses just disappeared from the high street. What followed was a public petition, which I started. There was huge public disappointment, as older populations are used to using cash. The postmistress of the next nearest post office wants to retire, which leaves just one bank with one cash machine. The next nearest cash machine is 10 or 15 minutes’ walk away. Importantly, this was the loss of an anchor at a shopping centre that is vital for the local community. Working closely with the Post Office and local businesses, we sought to secure a new post office, but it is a challenge to make the franchise business model work. That will be even harder now with the employer increased national insurance contributions that businesses face. I raised this matter with the Minster today and he gave me a helpful answer. He mentioned the increase in the sub-postmaster pay offer, but there remains the issue that we are not replacing closing post offices on a like-for-like basis. Plymstock had a three-counter model, which the Post Office has offered to replace with a local franchise. It is offering just £15,000 to £18,000 a year to run that service within an existing or proposed business. We have to add on to that rent, business rates, staff, and set-up and running costs, because, at the moment, there are no businesses on the Broadway, where the post office was located, able to take on that service. There is also a challenge with the franchise model, in that it is often not possible to tag on additional services at the beginning that would make the business more profitable. For example, passport processing is not always offered at the start, and those extra services can often be the difference between a business model that will work and one that is unsustainable. Ironically, on 22 May, the day the general election was called, I met again with the Post Office—some three years later—to discuss the issue. The Post Office raised with me the statistics on what was needed. It thought that the use of a post office in the area would increase over time, but it would not take into account the fact that a neighbouring postmistress was seeking to retire. Therefore, the data showed that the area did not need anything more than a post office local. All it took was a tiny bit of horizon scanning to realise that there would be that need and that demand shortly. We got stuck in a Catch-22 situation. The Post Office reassured me that it had further people interested in running the post office, but, nearly one year later, nothing has come to fruition. The fight continues. As has been mentioned by other hon. Members, there is the option of banking hubs. The work of the Conservative Government to trailblaze this modern solution for communities has helped remarkably, and I am sure that we will hear lots about that this afternoon.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Post Office Closures: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Post Office closures on local communities.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Post Office Closures: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The community of Plymstock in my constituency saw its main post office close in September 2021, when Morrisons closed more than 80 of its newsagents across the country; the post offices were essentially collateral damage. Despite the best efforts of the community, my predecessor and councillors—including me, at the time—since the Post Office has downgraded the franchise on offer from main branch to post office local, it has been impossible to secure an operator due to the financial unviability of the model. Yesterday, the final local branch announced that it will close later in the year. What is the Minister doing to ensure that sustainable joint post office and banking services replace closing branches in constituencies like mine?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Two-year mortgages have hit 5%, borrowing is billions of pounds above forecast and retail sales have slumped. Does the Prime Minister still believe that the Chancellor is doing a good job?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Gables, an animal rescue charity in my constituency that I met before Christmas, and the Devon Mental Health Alliance have shared the negative impacts the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions will have on their service delivery. For Gables, it is a £22,000 increase to its costs. For DMHA, it decreases the amount of services it can provide, which are needed to ease local NHS pressures. What hope can the Secretary of State offer them for the future?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s announcement; it is great to see some progress. I will not cover what has been said about the legal powers, but I am interested in the funding. When I led a commission in Plymouth, the money to pay for it came from the local authority’s in-year budget. I appreciate the £7 million in total that has been announced. However, the Home Secretary has talked a lot about the police. What additional funding will they receive to do this work on a local level? What additional funding will there be for the practicalities of holding these inquiries, outside the five initial local authorities? What funding will come forward for the interventions that might be recommended following the inquiries? We know that local authorities are incredibly cash-strapped, and this could potentially disincentivise them to follow through on these local inquiries. Finally, is that £7 million new money going into the violence against women and girls budget, or is it money that would have been spent elsewhere?

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

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend that ultimately tenants are at risk of losing out if there are no properties left in the market. That leads me on to my next point and one of the other reasons why an assessment would be useful in the light of new clause 20. We heard in Committee that rural landlords are particularly concerned. According to the Country Land and Business Association, 44% of landlords are planning to sell in the next two years, and only 21% are planning to build new properties. When 90% of those planning to leave cite reforms to the private rented sector as a reason, we need an opportunity to reflect and to see the impact assessment. Having set out some of my reasons for supporting new clause 20, I will turn briefly to new clause 15, which has been mentioned many times already. I appreciate why it has been tabled in the tragic circumstances that have been laid out. In the light of some conversations we had in Committee, I am interested to see who is in scope to be considered family for the purposes of that guarantor system. The new clause lists “child…grandchild…parent…grandparent…sibling…niece or nephew…aunt or uncle…or, a cousin”. That is a wide but—I think we would all agree—highly realistic view of what family is. However, in schedule 1 to the Bill, a landlord can only evict an existing tenant to house a parent, grandparent, sibling, child or grandchild. I raised this matter with the Minister in Committee, and I know that he thinks tenants’ rights would be inhibited if we extended the definition of family, but I find it puzzling that a wide extended family is justified in new clause 15, but not in the determination of who lives in a property under schedule 1. Often, those family members may be vulnerable themselves and need somewhere to live. It is a niche point, but for the Government to say that someone cannot house their niece or nephew—or, in the light of new clause 15, their aunt, uncle or cousin—feels like an overreach of the state. We are slightly testing ownership rights and restricting trust and freedom in society as a result.

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

  More

  I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes. I agree that the market is important, but I also appreciate that there are some whom the market has failed. We have to find a situation where those who are not looked after by their landlords can receive support, but, as I have already said, my concern is that the Bill goes too far in the opposite direction.

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

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is a perfect example of one of the unintended consequences that I do not believe have been put in deliberately but are something that we might see as a result of the Bill. Other issues include accidental landlords—those who did not intend to be landlords and are not large portfolio holders—and small landlords, and we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner about the challenge they face regarding economic drivers and the risk of the market shrinking. We talked a lot about that on Second Reading, but ultimately landlords are leaving the market, and if there are fewer homes for people to rent, we are in a worse situation. I support new clause 20, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I believe a review of the Bill’s impact on the housing market after a year is important to ensure that we make it even better than it already is, and to address those unintended consequences. We can all agree that is important, given the challenges we have already heard about regarding the long housing waiting lists and the homelessness rife across our country. It is also important to listen to landlords. In particular, I draw attention to some of the reasons why new clause 20 is so important. Plymouth Access to Housing, known as PATH, is a key player in tackling homelessness in my constituency, and it works especially with those who are harder to place into accommodation. It has rightly said that it supports the Bill in principle—as we have heard, the Opposition support large parts of it too—but in a buoyant private rental market. It is concerned that it is not buoyant, so there is already a challenge. That is why a review would be important. PATH also says that it has received funding in the past to support landlords to stay in the private rented sector. What plans does the Minister have, perhaps outside of this Bill, to ensure that such organisations, in which some Members present today have worked, might be able to mitigate the impact of some of those future challenges? The South West Landlords Association, which I have mentioned, would benefit from new clause 20, because it would allow for an assessment of a provision that essentially amounts to a doubling of the amount of rent arrears that can be accrued and of the notice required for possession before a landlord can get somebody out of their property. Landlords are particularly concerned about that, for the financial reasons we have already set out. If they have to wait for three months of arrears and then another month’s notice before they can remove someone from their property when they have not been paying rent, that has a massive impact on small landlords, and on those accidental landlords in particular—that is nearly half a year of income they would lose. Ultimately, it is the luck of the draw. We do not know in advance how good tenants will be. If someone has an excellent tenant, it is not a problem, but with a bad tenant it is not so good.

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

  More

  I was privileged to serve on the Bill Committee, and it is good to see many fellow members of the Committee in the House this afternoon. Before I start, I wish to pay tribute to the many excellent landlords across our country. The Bill has been designed to tackle the worst offenders, but it is worth putting on the record that thousands upon thousands of landlords do a good job of providing long-term accommodation for many people in the private rented sector. On Second Reading and in Committee we spoke about the unintended consequences that exist in the Bill, some of which still remain—that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this debate, and I thank all the Members who have contributed. We are very familiar with this issue; I have taken part in many such debates myself. Let me respond to a couple of comments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) alerted us to West Somerset Railway, which is an illustration of how, oftentimes, the south-west is seen as a holiday destination rather than somewhere where the railway line is needed as an economic driver. Having been on West Somerset Railway, I am particularly fond of it, but it is not good enough that it is all she has access to, in addition to Tiverton Parkway railway station. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) highlighted the upcoming opening of the Mid Cornwall Metro, which we should acknowledge came from the previous Government’s levelling up funding, and was delivered by Conservative-led Cornwall council. It is a clear illustration of how smaller metros can be delivered, and it would be great to see more of them across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) raised challenges around Bedwyn station in his constituency, and we have also had contributions from the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is really good to hear perspectives from across all their constituencies. It is important that I begin by recognising the dedicated workforce we have across the railway industry. Obviously, in the last few months, there has been a huge amount of noise about railways, particularly around increases in salaries and so on. I do not know about other Members, but I have had at least one constituent highlight the fact that, if we are not careful, we could demonise the valuable workers who we need in our train system, so I want to acknowledge on the record the fact that the whole train system is vital to our country. We have to acknowledge that, but we still need to have this debate and represent other voices across our constituencies. We have had three debates on the railways in recent months—or, at least, I have taken part in three debates. This includes my maiden speech, which took place in the passenger railway Bill debate—it would be remiss of me, having spoken to the Minister earlier, not to mention “The Loco-Motion”, which, if hon. Members are interested, I referred to in my maiden speech. In the last two months, we have also had debates on both the railway in Devon and Old Oak Common, so it should be really clear to the Minister and his team that this is something that the south-west is particularly passionate about. I have to admit that I have two hats on—not only am I representing the official Opposition today, but I am a Member from Devon, so I feel a lot of what has been said this morning very deeply. We must also acknowledge the meetings that Ministers have had, and have been very open-handed in. There have been open conversations on this issue, but there is still some way to go, as has been clear today. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot summarised some of those key challenges particularly well in his speech, and he spoke strongly about the funding we need for the fifth phase of Dawlish. Otherwise, it would ultimately be a waste of money; we have done everything that can been achieved without completing that work. Old Oak Common needs no further explanation—it has been covered widely, as has the challenge of wi-fi accessibility, and the wider context of roads and buses in the south-west. Let us not forget, though, that between 2010 and 2024, the Conservatives increased investment by £100 billion, so it is not fair to say that nothing has happened. The railway system is something that we have all been working on over the last few decades. Included in that total was £165 million on the south-west rail resilience programme, which has already been mentioned. It was a bold decision to reallocate HS2 phase 2 funds towards restoring our railways. We would have seen some real benefits from that in the south-west. It has been cancelled because the new Government have said that there is no funding for it. However, I note that they have managed to reinstate phase 2 between Crewe and Manchester, which I assume uses the money that would ultimately have been used for projects such as the TavyRail between Tavistock and Plymouth. I am interested in hearing the Minister comment on that. How can the Government say that the Restoring your Railway was unfunded if they have been able to bring the Crewe to Manchester line back into play? We have also seen the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 come through. It has been mentioned this morning, and I will not speak much about it, other than to say that we believe it is an ideological piece of legislation. We were disappointed that the Government rejected our reasoned amendment, which would have ensured that, when terminating existing franchise agreements, the Government would have at least considered operating performance. Instead, we have had inflation-busting pay rises without productivity agreements being secured. Most recently, on 12 December, the latest Office of Rail and Road figures, from July to September, showed that since the increase in those salaries, we have seen decreased performance, decreased punctuality, increased cancellations and decreased public performance measures. I do not want to cast aspersions, but they do seem to be slightly linked. As I draw to a close, I want to lay out some questions for the Minister. Some of them have been touched on before, but it is a perfect opportunity to reiterate them. On 11 November, in the Chamber, I raised the issue of the lack of Sundays in the Great Western Railway contracts, which has a massive impact on rail services across the south-west. It was raised again in the Westminster Hall debate in December, and in November the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), said that she would return to the House with an update. I would be interested to know if there has been any progress in those negotiations. Is the Minister convinced that the spending decisions for the £30 million Old Oak Common mitigations, which have also been mentioned today, are best for passengers in the south-west? Although many hon. Members have argued today that that £30 million may need to be paid to make Old Oak Common happen, I do not believe that residents across the south-west are necessarily seeing the benefits. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that not all south-west services will have to stop at Old Oak Common? I ask that to reiterate the points that have been made already. Will the Minister also confirm that the HS2 phase 2, Crewe to Manchester route is fully funded? That announcement was made earlier on in this Parliament. Finally, if I may—and if the room will humour me—I have one question that remains unanswered about my constituency. CrossCountry trains do not stop at Ivybridge train station in my constituency, which is fully ready as a park and ride. Currently, only Great Western Railway is committed to doing that, and serves it with 16 trains a day. My constituency has the new and growing town of Sherford, plus the suburbs of Plympton and Plymstock, all of which would benefit from Ivybridge having up to 45 trains stopping a day. Will the Minister commit to looking further into that, and could we work together on pressuring CrossCountry to deliver that for my constituents? I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate today. I do not think that the issue of railways in the south-west is going anywhere fast. [Laughter] That was totally unintended—turns out I am naturally funny after all. Ultimately, I think the Minister will be hearing more from us. I know I speak on behalf of Members from across the south-west when I say that I want to know that the Government are listening. I hope the Government appreciate that we are not going to go away, because the issue is incredibly important to the entire region, which has so much potential for the economy of the United Kingdom.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution. It would be great if Ministers could address that point this afternoon, so that those who are watching this debate can understand whether the Government will recommit to doing something on single-sex spaces. To go back to Plymouth, the experts in our city are beginning to look at the fact that the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created the statutory standing for children to be considered victims in their own right. The men and women working on the issue in Plymouth are beginning to wonder whether we should call it violence against women and children, rather than girls, because the challenge with any label is that it can take our focus off what we need to be talking about. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. I have briefly set out the results of the commission on violence against women and girls and our recommendations. Members are all welcome to visit Plymouth to see what we have done. We have not solved the problem, but we have gone a long way to playing our part in tackling violence against women and girls.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is making a valuable point about the dangers online. Does she agrees that one of the big threats is the incel community? This highlights the need to approach violence against women and girls from a public health perspective, because we cannot just rely on the police to deal with it. Often there are mental health issues and all sorts of family breakdown challenges. Does she agree that tackling the incel issue is vital in this environment?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  In 2021, Plymouth, part of which is in my constituency of South West Devon, had two horrific tragedies affecting a number of people. We had the Keyham shootings, which were incel-linked, hence my question about that earlier, and the tragic murder of Bobbi-Anne McLeod. I know that both Ministers are well aware of those cases. What came out of those tragedies was an opportunity to shine a light on VAWG in the city in a way that had never happened before, as well as to see what was already being done, and what more could be done to make things even better, and ultimately to make women and girls safe, and feel safe. The Plymouth violence against women and girls commission was established in response, and I had the privilege of leading it. It took us six months, but we worked cross party, and we reported back with 15 recommendations, which were supported by organisations and businesses right across the city. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we deliberately called it the “Male Violence Against Women and Girls Report”. At the time, it felt as though we were breaking ground, but we have moved on a long way since then. In January 2023, one of the recommendations, which was for a Westminster Hall debate, came to fruition, so my name was mentioned in Hansard . The Ministers both took part in that debate, which my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, organised, and it enabled us to share our learning, which we were really keen to do. We all know that violence against women and girls is a huge topic, and it is very difficult sometimes even to figure out the best way to approach it. That is why we approached it through the lens of public health. We recognised that there are no quick fixes, and that multiple factors influence the likelihood of someone being a perpetrator or a victim, and that was key to what we did. We wanted to change culture and behaviour in the city, and to support women and girls by being victim-focused and trauma-informed. I pay tribute to the organisations that were already working hard to do that in the city, including Trevi, First Light, Ahimsa, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and our police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, as well as the police and the city council. In particular, I want to name Hannah Shead, who has worked for Trevi for a number of years and is now moving on. I thought it would be nice to get her mentioned. We also recognise the importance of creating safe spaces and the building blocks for the future. That was two years ago, and I will briefly update the House on what we have done since. A key thing we did was appoint a strategic lead in the city, and there are now four women—Meghan, Verity, Tracy and Lisa—whose job it is to bring everything that is happening across the city together. If any Members want to take a good example back to their constituencies, I would highly recommend that one. On changing culture, there was a focus on allyship and education for those of all ages. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done fantastic work in schools focusing on pornography, and we have seen the establishment of a group called Man Culture, which wants to work collaboratively on reducing VAWG in the city. It received funding under the serious violence duty, and has delivered workshops that facilitated conversations about healthy and positive masculinity, a subject raised today. A huge amount is being done to support women and girls and to make it easier to access support. Since 2022, the city has been pursuing co-ordinated community response accreditation. It is working with Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, and we want to ensure that we have an assessment of how we deal with all this multi-agency work. There has been a review of the city’s multi-agency risk assessment conference, which has led to improvements and a new steering group, which is ongoing. It is looking at developing a multi-agency tasking and co-ordination process in the city, and the working group for that was launched in autumn 2024. We want the council, police, probation and local charities to work with perpetrators, engaging with them, disrupting their behaviour, and seeing high-harm domestic abuse perpetrators tackled. A huge amount has been done on creating safe spaces. Of particular note is—the House will have to bear with me; it is a long name—Plymouth’s evening and night-time economy predatory behaviour disruption partnership. It is working on a pilot looking at how we can bring together civic and criminal justice tools to tackle predatory behaviours. Criminal justice tools are often not enough, or do not hit a trigger point. In the past 12 months, we have had 12 community protection notice warnings served, one antisocial behaviour stage 2 warning served, and five meetings at police stations with words of advice. That is cracking action. We have brought together those criminal justice actions to tackle that predatory behaviour. Well done to everyone involved. The key is working together and holding each other to account. Still on the theme of safe spaces, I will touch on single-sex spaces. I ask the House to hear me out, as I say this with a real spirit of gentleness. I appreciate that there are a lot of women out there—some are my constituents—for whom this issue is particularly important, and it is important that their voices be heard. There is a concern among women about the lack of clarity over language and guidelines, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), when she was Women and Equalities Minister, called for examples of guidance that might wrongly suggest that people have a legal right to access all single-sex spaces and services on the basis of their self-identified gender. The new Government responded to that in December, and we are concerned that it has led to a lack of clarity about whether a single-sex space can be used by those who self-identify, or is specifically just for women.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier in my contribution, I referred to Man Culture. If I can be of any assistance at all in the hon. Gentleman’s quest to find some examples, another organisation I would be delighted to recommend to him is Beyond Equality. If there is anything I can do, I would be happy to do that.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend is correct. There has to be a middle ground that we could find. I suggest that we are using a hammer to crack a nut. A lot of these parents are not against having to say something about what they are doing, but to suggest that they have to give chapter and verse to their local authority, which in many cases will have failed them already—that relationship may well have broken down—feels like too much of a strike.

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

  More

  I will make some progress, because I will not get any extra time for taking a further intervention. The requirements in the Bill therefore risk hindering families who, for legitimate reasons—often because of failures in the SEND provision that they needed—have opted to educate their children at home. I have three questions for Ministers. Will the Government confirm that the evidence base for this part of the Bill is founded on accurate data and genuine needs, which reflects the questions asked by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the potential consequences of the Bill for home-educating families and their ability to provide a tailored high-quality education, and might we inadvertently hinder them in doing that? Thirdly, will the Government work to protect the rights of home educators and prioritise the wellbeing of children over administrative convenience? We have heard all sorts of contributions this afternoon on many topics, but as I said in my maiden speech, looked-after children are one of the key things that I wish to speak about. I believe very strongly in the rights of parents to choose what is best for their children. I really hope that the Government will listen to today’s contributions on both points, and that some amendments will be tabled in the next stage of scrutiny that would tighten up the Bill and make for an even better piece of legislation.

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

  More

  Clause 7, which introduces proposed new section 23CZAA to the Children Act 1989 on Staying Close support, builds on the previous Conservative Government’s “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy. In particular, I refer to the pledge to strengthen the Staying Close offer and provide a statutory basis for it. I therefore welcome the commitment to this in the Bill, particularly the requirement of local authorities to provide suitable accommodation for formerly looked after children well into adulthood. At an event last year that I had the privilege to co-host, which was also attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is no longer in her place, we heard from four young people—Tahir, Bella, William and Jess—who have all been supported by Home For Good and Safe Families in supported lodgings. Supported lodgings is where a young person stays with a family who provides them with life skills. There is more to it—I can explain another time—but those are the basics of it. All the young people shared powerful stories of how living within a household had enabled them to pursue education and work and given them a place to call home and, in some cases, as one described, a second family. How can supported lodgings help with the aims of staying close in this Bill? In October 2024, the “Voices of Supported Lodgings” was published, which had contributions from the four young people whom I have mentioned. It found that every Staying Close support category that is listed in the Bill has been proven to be provided by supported lodgings. On health and wellbeing, 84% of the young people reported that supported lodgings feels like home. On relationships, 89% had a good relationship with their host. On education, employment and training, young people in supported lodgings are 8% more likely to be in education and employment or training than other care leavers. And on participation in society, 90% of these young people felt more confident in their ability to live independently. Let us not forget that these are looked-after children— children who have spent a considerable amount of time in care. Will the Government amend the Bill to specifically reference supported lodgings provision as a high-quality example of the Staying Close support that local authorities could provide for local care leavers? And with this, will they commit to provide the ability for local authorities to develop supported lodgings in their area through recruitment and the training of hosts? For some young formerly looked-after people, private rented accommodation may be where they wish to live. However, without family to support them in securing a deposit or even acting as a guarantor, will the Government seek to extend the role of local authorities as corporate parents to require them to facilitate a rent deposit and guarantor scheme for looked-after children? I also wish to touch on home-schooling. I did not get home-schooled, and I do not always think that it is the best option, but for many it is the choice that they have made for their children. But it feels like this Bill a hammer to crack a nut. I fully appreciate that there is a risk of children going missing from education, and that home-schooling can be used for inappropriate reasons, but many parents, including many constituents who have written to me, have opted to home-educate and are doing an excellent job and are deeply concerned about the proposed over-regulation that they face in the Bill.

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

  More

  I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Bill is seeking a detailed explanation from parents of what they are planning to do at home with their children. Quite frankly, it will hinder the work that they are doing in educating those children. Schools are probably not readily providing some of that information either. I am concerned by the implication in the Bill that the state is better at parenting than parents themselves. The changes in the Bill directly contradict section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which affirms a parent’s legal duty to ensure that their children “receive efficient full-time education…either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.” That is important, because it underscores the principle that parents, not the state, hold primary responsibility for the education of their children, except in the minority of cases where there is harm or neglect. Let us not forget that many parents opt to home-school because the state system has failed their children. I urge caution with the provision in the Bill, which will add further stress to such parents, who have already had to fight long and hard for their children.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Health and Adult Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  What is missing from today’s announcement is any sort of update on the new hospitals programme review, which is vital in my constituency of South West Devon, because Derriford hospital needs its urgent and emergency care centre to bring down ambulance waiting times before it can even start to tackle its general waiting list issues. When will Derriford hospital hear whether it has been successful in the new hospitals programme review?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We have long-standing, cross-party support in Plymouth and Devon for ensuring the future of the Royal Marines, including 42 Commando in my constituency. Given the amphibious assault capability gap that we have as a result of scrapping—or, should I say, retiring—Devonport ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, what commitment can the Secretary of State give that the green light will be given to building six multi-role support ships, and can he give a firm indication of when he hopes they will be in service?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Rural England Prosperity Fund · Hansard source

  More

  2. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of extending the rural England prosperity fund.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Rural England Prosperity Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that answer. Farmers in my constituency of South West Devon have highlighted the role that the rural England prosperity fund could play in the economic growth of our community. Given the publication of the English devolution White Paper this week, what conversations has the Minister had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how funding, such as the rural England prosperity fund, can ensure that devolution is a success for the countryside?