Sharon Hodgson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent opening speech on a topic that is so important for all our communities. I am sure that he is as shocked as I am to learn of the severe health inequalities in coalfield communities; the average life expectancy is around a year less than the national average, and around three years less than that in the south-east. For the north-east, it is even worse. Does he agree that for these communities, these health inequalities are the long-term legacy, and that is why we need to ensure that coalfield communities are properly supported, even in this day?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has mentioned commuting and infrastructure. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), those things are important in connecting people from Durham to jobs in Washington at Nissan, and at other great companies there, such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems. Does he agree that there has been under-investment for years in the infrastructure that he is talking about, and especially in transport infrastructure, which makes projects such as the Leamside line, which our Mayor of the North-East supports, so important for creating the connectivity that we need?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report, which found that the children left disabled by valproate and the women injured by pelvic mesh implants for life should be given urgent financial compensation. One year on, we are yet to see an official Government response to that report. The Leader of the House will know how important it is that women are listened to by healthcare professionals. Surely she agrees that when they are dismissed and left physically damaged by those who were supposed to have protected them, financial redress is deserved. Will she grant a debate in Government time to allow MPs from across this House—we all have constituents who have raised this with us—to discuss the recommendations of the all-important Hughes report to mark this significant occasion?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  On this World Cancer Day, will my hon. Friend the public health Minister tell me what efforts he is making to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, such as a bloated tummy, lack of appetite or feeling full, tummy pain or needing to pee more often, in order to increase lifesaving early diagnosis?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. To simplify the point he is making, we should all remember that from small acorns great oaks grow, and even big companies in my constituency such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems will have started at some point as an SME. What he is suggesting today would help those SMEs that we all have in our constituencies maybe one day to grow into those grand great oaks.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  Having spent 15 years dealing with the CMA in my campaign to end the abuse of the secondary ticketing market, I have long felt that the CMA is in desperate need of much stronger and clearer ministerial oversight. Can the Minister confirm today which Minister will have oversight of the CMA, and that it will be an active role, not a role in name only?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has taken the time to come along and made such excellent contributions on this vital issue. I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who spoke for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who spoke for the Lib Dems, for listening. I was happy to hear that the Minister will meet AVUK and explore the potential of a pilot. That is great news. I hope that he might also get a chance to speak to Sam today—that would be wonderful. I also hope that, if NICE deems—as we all have—that this therapy is both clinically and economically valuable, he will update the guidance to ICBs. The Minister also mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. I hope he recognises that it has already been nine years since the guidance was updated and that the issue needs urgent attention, perhaps towards the start of the 10-year plan rather than the end of it; otherwise, we will be getting on for 20 years. Today, we have the opportunity—the Minister especially—to change the fate of deaf children in this country. They deserve the same opportunities and outcomes as their hearing peers. That surely cannot be a controversial position. These children are the future. We must invest in them, not only because it is the right thing to do morally, but because any financial investment will produce economic returns in abundance. Mainly, we should invest in them because our children deserve it.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this fine morning, Mr Western. I thank all hon. Members, especially the new Members, who have come along to speak in this all-important debate, which I have the privilege of opening. I thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for attending. I am delighted to see in the Gallery Sam and his parents, whom I met when I sponsored Auditory Verbal UK’s parliamentary drop-in back in October last year—how time flies! At that reception, I was talking to Sam and some of the other young people there, and I asked whether any deaf children had come along, only to be told that all the children I had been talking to were actually deaf, including Sam. That is the difference this therapy can make, and why I am so passionately supporting and making this case today. Sam was diagnosed as being profoundly deaf at five weeks old. It was not until Auditory Verbal UK was recommended to Sam’s parents by a friend of a friend, by chance, that his fate changed forever. With the help of auditory verbal therapy, Sam learned to listen and talk just like his peers. Now 13 years old, Sam can speak and do anything he puts his mind to. He is doing really well at school, I am told, and will enjoy the same opportunities as his hearing friends. For children like Sam, Auditory Verbal UK has been life-changing. Its specialist work and support provided to deaf children and their families is truly remarkable. I am therefore glad to also see representatives from AVUK here today. They will always have my support and should be very proud of the work they do. Sam stands today as living proof that when deaf children and their families have access to early, effective support to develop language and communication, opportunities are transformed. If the Government, or anyone here or watching at home, need convincing of the clear, compelling and existing evidence of the benefits of auditory verbal therapy, they have only to look to children like Sam. Although all deaf children would benefit extraordinarily from auditory verbal therapy, the truth is that they will not all be as lucky as Sam. The current reality is that more than 90% of deaf children under the age of five in the UK are unable to access auditory verbal therapy, because there is little to no provision through publicly funded services. Currently, there are a mere 33 certified auditory verbal therapists in the UK. It is clear that these wonderful therapists, who hold the potential to transform the lives of our deaf children, are sadly few and far between. In the whole of the north-east, there are no qualified auditory verbal therapists. Deaf children in my constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, for example, are unable to access this support through publicly funded services. This postcode-lottery approach to healthcare is simply unacceptable. This is the situation in spite of public research that shows that a huge 83% of adults from the north-east believe that auditory verbal therapy should be available to all deaf children via publicly funded services. We know the therapy works and that there is public support for its roll-out throughout the country, so what are we waiting for? Raising awareness that support is out there is just the first hurdle, because if impacted families are aware of the therapy but have no qualified therapists in their area, their challenges persist. Even Sam’s journey from discovering auditory verbal therapy to completing it was far from smooth sailing. With no access to the therapy via public services local to him, he and his family had to travel weekly to Oxfordshire from Eastbourne so that they could access this life-changing therapy. Not all deaf children and their families can afford the privilege of time or money to go to such lengths every week, as much as they may want to. Certainly, not all deaf children have the privilege of having a qualified therapist in their area, which is a clear problem. We absolutely need to address that inequality of access. To extend access, we need to train more specialist practitioners in auditory verbal therapy. By equipping a small proportion of the speech and language therapists, audiologists and teachers of the deaf who are currently working in the public sector with additional skills in this approach, we can enable every family who wants their deaf child to learn to listen and talk to access auditory verbal therapy through publicly funded services close to where they live. Training is already happening, with UK professionals already qualified and others on their training journey. This is possible only thanks to the fundraising efforts of the charity Auditory Verbal UK, including two teachers of the deaf in the north-east who remain in training. There is a clear route for professionals to become trained in auditory verbal therapy, as well as a cohort of public sector professionals who can then share their experience of training and how it has enhanced their practice. Research points towards the fact that as a result of pursuing the training and qualifying as listening and spoken language specialists, professionals recognise significant growth in their knowledge and skills, equipping them to train others who can then do the same—the “train the trainers” model. There are around 50,000 deaf children in the UK, and 7,200 of them are under the age of five. They currently face the prospect of lower academic achievement and employment, and they are at a higher risk of poor mental health, bullying and social exclusion. Deaf children are almost twice as likely as all children to complete their first year of school without having achieved a good level of development in relation to the early years foundation. The statistics clearly highlight a stark difference between hearing and non-hearing peers in quality of life, educational attainment, employment rates and mental wellbeing. If the moral argument is not convincing enough, surely no one can deny the huge economic returns. Economic analysis based on His Majesty’s Treasury guidelines shows that an investment of just £2 million per year for the next 10 years for training a proportion of the existing public sector workforce could deliver a whopping £152 million of economic benefit to the UK. That is a massive £11.7 billion over a 50-year period. The economic savings are huge, including £3.4 billion through less need for one-to-one support throughout primary school; £1 billion of increased employment; £4 billion due to increased quality of life; a £7.5 million decrease in Government support; and £30.5 million saved through avoided injury. It is a small economic investment that will transform the lives of some of the most vulnerable children in this country, while also bringing us huge economic returns. Surely this is a no-brainer. So long as the UK remains unconvinced, we are falling behind as other countries trailblaze the way. Auditory verbal therapy is already state-funded in countries including Australia, New Zealand and Denmark, and the success rates speak volumes. In 2022, following a successful Government-funded pilot in Denmark that showed that 84% of children acquired age-equivalent spoken language after just three years of AVT, compared with 30% previously, auditory verbal therapy became part of the standard healthcare system there. The irony is that here in the UK we are now training many Danish professionals in AV therapy to deliver it to children in Denmark, despite being unable to support our own workforce to enhance their skills to get those outcomes for children here in the UK. That cannot be right. I thank the Minister for his time and leave him with three questions. First, what scope is there for the UK to implement a pilot scheme, in the same way that Denmark did, at least to prove the transformation potential of this therapy in a couple of areas, for those who remain unconvinced? Secondly, will he commit to supporting the need to increase access to auditory verbal therapy, and provide the investment needed when the funding allows? Thirdly, will he meet the deaf children and families charity Auditory Verbal UK, from which representatives are here today, to hear at first hand about the impact of early support, and the charity’s tangible plans to enable families to access the therapy wherever they live in the UK? I thank the Minister in advance and look forward to hearing the other speakers. I look forward to the Minister’s response after he has listened to colleagues’ perspectives in this very important debate.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  Am I right in thinking, from what the Minister has just said, that he will issue revised guidance following today’s debate? Am I right that the Government, having given an extra £26 billion to local areas, will give them guidance that they should be looking to commission these services on a much bigger scale, so that we have more than 33 AVT therapists?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Obesity: Food and Diet · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate, and I am so happy to have the opportunity to speak in it. I commend the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who I have worked with over a number of years, for his excellent speech. It is always really hard to talk about oneself, but he did it with grace. Listening to his really thoughtful contribution today will have helped a lot of people—it has definitely helped me. As hon. Members know, I am a huge supporter of school food. I make lots of contributions about it in this place; I believe that it should be universal, for all the reasons that I will go on to discuss. It is not only about stigma, poverty alleviation and all of that, but about the health benefits that all children eating healthy school food would bring, especially in regard to their diet and obesity. Looking at schools up and down the country, the food that they serve is far too inconsistent. We have seen some brilliant examples across the country—we have all visited schools in our constituencies that serve a variety of salads and nutritious hot meals—but others are serving things like pizzas, burgers or chips far more often than they should be doing under the school food standards. That is damaging the health of a generation. The report by the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, chaired by the wonderful Baroness Walmsley, discussed the fact that too many secondary schools in particular were serving up food that was not preparing students for the rest of their school day. As Members across the House know, this is where the school food standards should come in. However, a study by Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school food standards, what appears on menus, and what actually ends up on plates. In fact, 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school food standards at all. In other words, the school food standards exist on paper, but not on plates. That is why, across the sector and in this House, we have been calling for proper enforcement of the school food standards. This Government must end the postcode lottery in what children get to eat at lunchtime. There is no greater priority for this Government than raising the healthiest generation of children ever. This is a matter of health: one in three children are already at risk of future food-related ill health, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease, by the age of 10. Existing Government initiatives are already going above and beyond to combat that, and providing a free breakfast to every primary school child will ensure that pupils are starting their day nourished and ready to learn, but there is more to be done. The Department for Education has reported that 11% of families nationally who are entitled to claim free school meals have not applied to receive them. This means that between 240,000 and 470,000 children in England—the figure seems to vary depending on who you talk to, but it is a large number—are missing out on their statutory right to a free school meal. This is due to barriers such as complex applications, language or literacy challenges, stigma and low awareness. An auto-enrolment plan, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) in his private Member’s Bill—the Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) in his opening speech, would solve the problem. Many local authorities have already had massive success, but data-sharing challenges or bureaucracy should not prevent children from eating at school, especially when they are entitled to a free school meal. Because free school meals are a statutory scheme, Government funding should already exist to provide the up to 470,000 missing children with a school lunch, so this should not be seen as a spending commitment. That funding also unlocks vital pupil premium funding. Since 2016, Sheffield city council has unlocked £3.8 million of extra pupil premium funding every single year to support 5,400 children. Small tweaks like auto-enrolment really can have huge impacts on thousands of children’s lives. Another concern that must be addressed is the scarily low eligibility criteria for free school meals. Households must be earning less than £7,400 a year before benefits to be entitled. That leaves out up to 900,000 children who are living in poverty by any measure but are not in receipt of that crucial support. We have heard examples of children pretending to eat from empty lunchboxes, hiding in the playground because they do not want others to know that they do not have any food or money for lunch, or asking their friends for an extra sandwich for their friend who never has any food for lunch. We must bring the eligibility criteria in line with universal credit, which would provide those 900,000 children with a hot, nutritious meal at lunchtime. Surely that is the least we should be doing in one of the richest countries in the world. In an ideal world, we would follow the example of the London Mayor and extend free school meals to all primary-age children, with the ambition of a universal offer. This would level the playing field and eliminate inequality at lunchtime, while also ensuring that all children eat healthy, nutritious meals, setting them up for a healthier life as adults with lower rates of obesity. As we have heard, that would save up to £35 billion a year. It is a win-win, surely. These progressive steps, empowered by the new breakfast club programme, should be taken when funding allows. The results would speak for themselves, delivering on our ambitious manifesto commitment for the UK to be raising the healthiest generation of children ever. Surely they deserve no less. They are our future, after all.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and I am very happy to be called to speak on such an important issue. As chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group, I am very interested in the need for MHRA reform in the context of the mesh, Primodos and valproate scandals. However, for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks on MHRA reform and the mesh scandal in particular, not least because the right hon. Lady opened the debate so well, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) will speak about the Primodos scandal and I do not want to steal any of her thunder. I want to start by paying tribute to all the campaigners we have worked with over so many years on the “First Do No Harm” report scandal, especially Kath Sanson from Sling the Mesh, Marie Lyon, who has been mentioned, from the Primodos campaign, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the valproate campaign. I also must pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege, who recently retired from the other place, who was the author of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and the former co-chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group. She has been a great support to me over the years. Thanks to her invaluable hard work highlighting key recommendations to prevent future health scandals, including vital MHRA reform, we know what we need to do. Now we must get on with the job. As we have heard, colleagues here today are in agreement that the MHRA is in need of urgent and substantial reform. One area in particular is the need for mandatory reporting of adverse events to the yellow card by healthcare professionals. Contrary to responses I received when I asked questions on the topic in the House, which argue that the current system works, it does not. It is broken. Let me be clear: the current voluntary system, which doctors enjoy, enabling them to choose whether to log side effects and complications to the MHRA yellow card, is simply unacceptable. This voluntary system has led to many adverse events going unreported. The system must be made mandatory, but that fix alone will not work if the data is there but is not used. The information must be tracked and assessed in real time by the MHRA, to spot trends of harm so that treatments can be stopped immediately if needed, to prevent the repetition of mistakes and, in turn, to prevent their escalation into further health scandals, as we have seen with mesh, valproate and Primodos. Comparison of datasets conducted by Sling the Mesh found that a whopping two thirds of mesh complications —some as serious as slicing into bladders, bowels or through vaginal walls—were not logged by healthcare professionals to the MHRA yellow card. If these excruciating examples are not interpreted by healthcare professionals as worthy of reporting, what reason do we have to trust that healthcare treatments are safe? We need to see the MHRA at the heart of patient safety, properly and efficiently regulating and recording and not just nodding treatments through like a tick-box exercise. Mesh, for example, was allowed from the 1990s onwards on the basis that it was equivalent to hernia mesh. Without any post-market surveillance by the MHRA, it was allowed to be aggressively sold, free rein, in the UK. This ultimately led to thousands of women, including my very own mam, being irreversibly harmed. Had reporting been mandatory, the sheer scale of women impacted could have at least been reduced through spotting a clear pattern of harm and putting a stop to it. It is clear that we need to change the current system, and fast. Most of the scandals we are talking about today affect women, so women’s voices must be taken seriously. We should not have to wait until media coverage publicly shames health scandals or documentaries force account-ability and answers upon us. The MHRA needs to be functioning and not just responding to treatments causing harm, but regulating and preventing them in the first place. Surely this is the absolute least we should expect from a regulation agency that is supposed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of patients and the medicines and medical devices that they receive—hence: first do no harm.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Health and Social Care: Winter Update · Hansard source

  More

  Under the last Conservative Government, strikes cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and 1.5 million appointments were cancelled, so may I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for making it his day one priority to sort that out? He called the junior doctors and found a deal within three weeks, ending the strikes. All of us across the House thank him for sorting that out. For the first winter in three years, staff will be on the frontline, not the picket line, as the Secretary of State so rightly said. Does he agree that that is just one example of what Labour Governments do in office? We always have a laser focus on making the NHS better, unlike the Conservatives, who seem to have a laser focus on making it fail.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices · Hansard source

  More

  Having campaigned on this issue for over 15 years, I have reached three main conclusions. First, the cap on resale should be set as low as possible—for example, face value plus 5% or 10%—to take the incentive out of scalping, or else we should simply follow the Irish model and prohibit resale for profit altogether. Secondly, many touts and resale sites are based overseas, so legislation must be supranational. Finally, any crackdown on the black market must be fully enforced, unlike in the current situation where prosecutions are few and far between: there have been a handful—six at most. Does the Minister agree?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this important debate. We know that conflict is on the rise across the world, and that with each conflict comes an increased level of vulnerability and violence for women and girls. Any discussion around conflict must therefore be conducted through a gendered lens, and today provides the opportunity for that. I thank my hon. Friend again for giving us the opportunity to shine a light on this ongoing issue. Conflict has an array of impacts on women and girls, many of which have been covered by colleagues already. I will focus my remarks on one hugely important yet understudied problem: the impact of sexual violence in conflict on women and girls. Too often, sexual violence against women and girls is swept under the rug, and its victims are forgotten, ignored or denied. Today is an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that it is real, it is a problem and we need to take it seriously across the world in order to end it. It is an area that I have campaigned on for a number of years, and I want to recognise how encouraging it is that so many new colleagues are in the Chamber today—the new colleagues are in the majority, which is great to see. We have already heard today about the impact of violence on women and girls in so many countries, including Congo, Sudan, the middle east, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Ukraine, Iraq and probably many more that I have either missed or will be talked about following my remarks. I will focus on the terrible war in Israel and Gaza, the sexual violence against Israeli women and girls committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023, and the sexual violence against Palestinian women and girls since then. As many of the victims on 7 October were murdered or died from their wounds, we may never have an exact picture of what happened in that murderous attack. What we do know is that Hamas’s violence against Israeli women was a well-documented case of mass, organised sexual violence, not least because the perpetrators proudly filmed, advertised and celebrated their crimes. One account from a first responder at Kibbutz Be’eri reported “piles and piles” of dead women who were “completely naked” from the waist down as well as horrific sexual mutilation. Rami Shmuel, an organiser of the Supernova music festival and a witness of the massacre, in which 360 people—mostly Israelis—were murdered, saw female victims with no clothes as he escaped. He said: “Their legs were spread out and some of them were butchered.” Another Supernova survivor, Yoni Saadon, reported seeing “eight or 10 of the fighters beating and raping” one woman. She also said: “When they finished they were laughing, and the last one shot her in the head.” These were not random acts, but a systematic effort that the women’s rights campaigner Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari has characterised as a “premeditated plan to use sexual violence as a weapon of war.” We must also take a moment to recognise that Hamas’s sexual violence may even be ongoing. Around 100 Israelis —the figure may be just under that, according to last night’s news—remain held hostage in Gaza, of whom we know 12 are women and girls. Reports have indicated and survivors have confirmed that both female and male hostages have been subjected to sexual assault in their 424 days in captivity. Likewise, I remain gravely concerned about the sexual violence that Palestinian women and girls have endured and continue to endure in this ongoing conflict. Credible reports from UN experts highlight that Palestinian women and girls in detention have been subject to multiple forms of sexual assault, including being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli officers. Photos of these vulnerable Palestinian women in degrading circumstances have also reportedly been taken and uploaded online by members of the Israeli army. Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, argued that all those numbers are, in fact, likely to be even higher due to the secrecy with which the assaults take place and the stigma around reporting sexual violence and rape, which discourages women from speaking out—something that exists wherever they are in the world. Wherever the victims are, we as both parliamentarians and human beings should be saying, “If you are a victim of sexual violence, we believe you,” but all too often they face scepticism and even outright denial. The Israeli women and girls subjected to sexual violence on 7 October 2023 were met with deafening silence from many agencies and organisations founded to support victims. Many organisations initially ignored or minimised Hamas’s crimes of sexual violence, or even doubted that they had even taken place. UN Women issued multiple statements following 7 October, none of which made reference to the sexual violence of that day. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls blandly expressed concern about “reports of sexual violence that may have occurred since 7 October committed by State and non-State actors against Israelis and Palestinians.” Worse, many supposed feminists dismissed discussion of Hamas’s rape as colonial feminism and unverified accusations; the latter will be all too familiar to those victims brave enough to report their experiences, whether in conflict zones or non-conflict zones. We know that this is sadly all too true for most victims of sexual violence. We know that sexual violence is perpetuated by stigma, silence, victim blaming and denial. All those prevent women and girls from getting the justice that they deserve. When we deny the reality of sexual violence, we perpetuate it, so it is incumbent on us all to ensure that we treat all victims of sexual violence with the respect and compassion that they deserve. Wherever you are and whoever you are, we believe you.

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

  More

  After decades of campaigning for the health of children and better school food, I am so pleased that universal primary breakfast club provision is being put on a statutory footing in the Bill. There is no greater priority for this Government than raising the healthiest generation of children ever. The fact that the Conservative party is trying to play politics with the wellbeing of children when it comes to this Bill is a true reflection of where its priorities lie. Providing a free breakfast to all primary school pupils is yet another manifesto commitment fulfilled, and it will transform the lives of children across the country. The Education Endowment Foundation found that school breakfasts can help deliver two months-worth of extra attainment at key stage 1. There will also be huge health outcomes. One in three children are already at risk of future food-related ill health, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease, by the age of 10. By providing a nutritious breakfast, we can ensure that children start their day at school ready to learn. However, I am concerned that the Bill does not include any kind of nationwide system of monitoring the food served in breakfast clubs. The school food standards set out over 10 years ago are still not being enforced. Children will be at risk—though it will not necessarily happen—of being served poor-quality breakfasts under the scheme. Alongside the roll-out, we need to put in place the recommendations in the excellent 2013 school food plan about Ofsted and the enforcement of standards. I hope that will be considered in later stages and iterations of the Bill. Speaking of health outcomes, it is a missed opportunity not to include auto-enrolment for free school meals in the Bill, as others have said today. The Department for Education has reported that nationally, 11% of families who are entitled to claim free school meals have not applied to receive them. That means that 470,000 children in England are missing out on their statutory right to a free school meal. That is due to barriers such as complex application processes, language or literacy challenges, stigma and low awareness. The FixOurFood research programme has worked with 66 local authorities, with huge success, but the burden must be taken off local authorities. Data-sharing challenges should not prevent children from eating the free school meal to which they are entitled. As the free school meal scheme is a statutory scheme, Government funding for providing those 470,000 children with a school lunch should already exist, so auto-enrolment should not be seen as extra spending. Importantly, auto-enrolment also unlocks vital extra pupil premium funding. For example, since 2016, Sheffield city council has unlocked £3.8 million in extra pupil premium funding every single year to support 5,400 children. That is just one example of many available. Including provision in the Bill to provide those children with a free lunch would have a very low cost, but an extremely high impact. Free school meals, enabled by the new breakfast programme, have been shown to be beneficial for both attainment and attendance at school. In fact, the case for universal free school meals is also a no-brainer. Impact on Urban Health found that every £1 invested in universal free schools meals returns £1.71 in core benefits. That includes massive savings for the NHS through reduction in childhood obesity rates. The London Mayor’s groundbreaking scheme to expand free school meals to all primary-aged pupils has also had unprecedented impact: 84% of parents said that the scheme had “helped” or “significantly helped” their household finances. An evaluation report was recently released; I encourage the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State to read that report, if they have not done so already. It contains significant findings that more than make the case for universal free school meals to be rolled out. I look forward to seeing the success of the breakfast club programme as it is rolled out—alongside, hopefully, more quality school lunches. I hope that creates further appetite for better and expanded school food provision in the future.