Catherine McKinnell
MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North · Labour · United Kingdom
“The family of a terminally ill constituent contacted me in desperation last month after trying to resolve the pension issues of their family member since January. She died yesterday, with her pension still unresolved. Can the Minister be more specific for that family about what will be done to resolve this issue?”
“As the UK trade envoy to Italy, I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the GCAP funding in his statement. As MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North, I add my voice to those who want to see this as an opportunity to genuinely spread investment and opportunity that will build strength and resilience in our people right across the UK—they a…”
“This report is welcome, but that does not make its existence any less tragic. Far too many mothers and babies have been failed, including mothers like my constituent Amie, who late last year was turned away repeatedly, despite reporting reduced movements. Her baby Seren was born stillborn.”
“Failures to address these issues have significant effects, both on the public finances and on the most vulnerable people in society, and, indeed, they are issues that are often reflected in our constituency mailboxes. I was contacted recently by a young woman who had reported child sexual abuse to the police last year.”
“Her husband was the victim of an assault by the defendant, who had raped his wife. They were forced to wait four hours for the trial to begin. They were eventually told that the defendant would arrive and that the delay to his delivery was causing the delay, but it had a knock-on effect on additional days in court.”
“Friend has said, we need a court estate that is fit for purpose in order to maximise the use of these additional days. I too have visited my local court, in this instance Newcastle Crown court.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,961 lines we hold for Catherine McKinnell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 100.
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has not only diagnosed the problem, but recommended a solution. We have established a child poverty taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State for Education along with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to take a fundamental look at the levers that we have in Government to support children so that they no longer grow up in poverty, which we know is affecting their outcomes both in education and in life.”
“Almost three in 10 parents of secondary-aged children already report their child’s school requiring five or more PE kit items. That is unacceptable. Amendment 32, if adopted, would effectively nullify that entire measure, and severely limit any cost savings it would generate for parents. It is also contrary to the main aim of the measure, which is to give parents more choice over where and how they spend their money—including on PE kit.”
“Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, to insert “except PE kit or other clothing or items required as part of the school’s provision of physical education lessons” and “except items of kit required when representing the school in sporting activities”. Amendment 32 would mean that, in addition to the three branded items that schools could require, with a fourth item for secondary and middle schools if those items included a branded tie, schools could also require pupils to have a potentially unlimited number of branded PE kit items. Amendment 91 would mean that schools could require those pupils who wish to represent the school in sporting activities to have a potentially unlimited number of branded items. At present, secondary schools in particular often require a large number of branded PE kit items.”
“Schools already have the powers to enforce it at present, and it goes against one of the main aims of this measure, which is to give parents greater choice and freedoms in their spending decisions on school uniform. Furthermore, on one additional technical point, while I appreciate the hon. Member’s intent with this amendment, the current drafting would apply this proposed new section to a wider range of schools than the original measure, including non-state-funded independent schools, which I assume was not his intention. I now turn to amendments 32 and 91, which were once again tabled by the hon.”
“I turn now to amendment 31, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. It would insert a proposed new section that says: “The appropriate authority of a school may require a pupil to buy or replace branded items which have been lost or damaged, or which the pupil has grown out of.” Schools can already set standards for appearance in their uniform and behaviour policies. For example, they can require that the correct uniform be worn, including any branded items, and that uniforms must be well presented. This proposed new section enabling schools to require pupils to replace lost, damaged or outgrown branded uniform is therefore unnecessary.”
“Equally, we do not want to place an undue burden or expectation on schools by suggesting that they could or should be supplying core items of uniform to their pupils at no cost. That could risk increasing visible inequalities between schools and pupils, depending on their circumstances. There is also the risk that, if schools provide pupils with additional branded items at no cost, they may be subsequently tempted to charge parents for expensive replacements, if those items are ever lost or damaged. Finally, while I understand the hon. Member’s objective with this amendment, I note that accepting it in its current form would result in the drafting of the Bill implying that it would be pupils themselves purchasing branded uniform items, which is very unlikely to be the case in practice and I am sure it was not the hon. Member’s intent.”
“The Government therefore want to ensure that the action we are taking to reduce the cost of school uniform provides all schools and parents with clarity about what these changes will mean for families. The hon. Member’s amendment would allow schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of school uniform, provided parents do not have to pay for them. It could create confusion about whether a given branded item of uniform would be captured within the statutory limit. We want to provide parents and pupils with clarity about the expectations regarding branded items in schools. Allowing schools’ uniform policies to set out different requirements, depending on the school’s ability to provide or source branded items for free, would undermine this principle.”
“The territorial extent of the provision applies to both England and Wales, but the application of these measures applies to England only. Education, including requirements around school uniform, is a devolved matter, and therefore so is this provision. I turn now to amendments 29 and 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, which would to leave out the word “have” and insert the word “buy” in the relevant lines. As the hon. Member knows and has heard, too many families still tell us that the cost of school uniforms remains too large a financial burden. We need to remove the cost of uniform as a barrier to children accessing school and its activities.”
“A cost cap on branded items would create ambiguity as to how items purchased in second-hand uniform sales, for example, would be accounted for. Lastly, a cap on the cost of branded school uniform would be complex for schools and parents to manage due to varying production costs and regional price differences. For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw her amendment. I now turn to Government amendment 7, which is a technical amendment to improve drafting that is consequential on Government amendment 8, which I will speak to shortly. Government amendment 7 ensures that the limits on branded school uniform items will continue to apply only to schools in England, following changes made by Government amendment 8.”
“Member for Twickenham, which is to replace the limit on the number of branded school uniform and PE kit items that a school can require with a limit on the cost of those branded school uniform items. We want to ensure that any action that we take to reduce the cost of uniform provides schools and parents with clarity, and offers parents choice in how to manage the cost of uniform. Ensuring that parents can buy items from a range of retailers gives them that flexibility. However, introducing a monetary cap on branded items risks increasing schools’ reliance on specific suppliers and therefore risks reducing that choice for parents. We want to also provide parents and schools with absolute clarity about our expectations regarding branded items in schools.”
“I grew up as one of eight siblings, and I do not know how my parents would have managed for the eight of us growing up, given the uniforms that some families have to buy today. That is why I am delighted to speak today to clause 23, and to address the amendments that have been put forward in this group, because this Government really are committed to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families. That is why the Government have chosen, as a priority in this Bill, among many other things, to support families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. I genuinely appreciate the contributions on this, some of which have been very thoughtful, and I am very happy to allay concerns that have been raised as part of this discussion. I will turn first to amendment 87, tabled by the hon.”
“Indeed, when I was recently asked to find a picture of myself in my old school uniform—and I had to search hard because, while I know I look really young, it was a while ago that I was at school—I wanted a picture that would represent the school that I went to, but strangely, when I found the pictures, I realised that my school uniform had no branding. It was a plain grey jumper, a plain grey skirt and a blue generic shirt. I realised that those were the times that we lived in; we had less, and that was the reality, I think, for the vast majority of schools. I remember my school being very smart and very strict, but that was the uniform that we had. I think we did have a blazer with a badge on as well, and we had to wear that to and from school, but that was how the school dealt with the public outward projection of the school identity.”
“It really is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, who made an incredibly powerful case for why we have brought forward these measures, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, who also shared her experience, as a mother, of battling some of these issues. I have to say that, on the way back to this Committee, after the brief break that we just had, I went past some members of staff who work in the House, and they said, “Oh, you look in a hurry.” I said, “Yes, we are about to talk about the measures that we are bringing forward on uniforms,” and, instantly, they said, “Oh my goodness, it’s a nightmare! They cost a fortune,” and expressed how challenging they find it.”
“No, the two things do not follow. I said that the limit on the number of branded items applies to PE kits. However, schools still have the freedom to choose how to use that branded number allocation, including in relation to PE and sports. It does not restrict the ability of schools to loan out specific competition kit where appropriate. The intention of the measure, which amendment 91 would completely undermine, is that the cost of PE and sports kits should never be a barrier to participation in PE and sports. That is what the measure is intended to achieve—while his measure would achieve the opposite.”
“Indeed, the entire purpose of the provision is to ensure that no child is prevented or put off from taking part in sport because they are worried about the cost of the sports kit. That should never be a barrier to a child’s participation in PE and sport. It is therefore right that schools that continue to require large numbers of branded items are forced to reduce them. That is why the measure is needed.”
“To be clear, the legislation will require that parents cannot be mandated to purchase more than three branded items, or four including a tie. That includes PE and sports kits. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman lives in the real world, but many schools already loan out sports kits to ensure the full participation of any child, and do not require the parent to buy the kit to participate in that sport. Many secondary schools have opportunities for a whole range of sports—quite rightly—and they all potentially require different kit, as well as matching kit in order to present a uniform team image. Many schools will already loan out the kit where they have to compete externally. Schools can loan it out or they can provide it for free.”
“The vast majority of primary schools do not currently require a branded tie and, as most primary schools already have a low number of compulsory branded items, we do not want that number to increase. In comparison, most secondary and middle schools already require branded ties, which are generally low-cost and long lasting. Ties are often a quick and distinctive way of signifying belonging, including identifying houses or year groups, so allowing secondary and middle schools an additional branded tie recognises the reality of school uniform policies in England. It balances reducing costs for parents with providing secondary schools with the necessary extra flexibility in setting their uniform policies.”
“We believe that the limit of three provides clarity to parents, gives them more choice in where they purchase uniform and allows them greater flexibility to make the spending decisions that suit their circumstances, all while giving schools the flexibility they need to set their uniform policies. I turn now to amendment 61, also tabled by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, which seeks to remove the ability of secondary and middle schools to have four compulsory branded items when one of those branded items is a tie. This Government are genuinely ambitious about reducing costs for parents, but we recognise that there are different uniform needs in primary and in secondary schools.”
“The Government believe that a limit of three branded items provides the best balance, reducing costs for parents while ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience the benefits that allowing a small number of branded items can bring. Restricting schools to only two branded items will make it harder for schools to find that balance and set a uniform policy that works best for their circumstances. That is especially true for secondary schools, which will already have to make choices about how best to use their limit of three or four branded items, depending on their local circumstances.”
“My hon. Friend puts it in a nutshell. Speaking of additional complexity, I turn now to amendments 59 and 60—I have not picked on those particularly; they just happened to coincide with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Tabled by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), the amendments seek to reduce the number of branded items primary and secondary schools can require from three to two. I know that the hon. Member has been a long-time campaigner on the issue of making school uniform more affordable for families. That is why I am sure he will share our view that, while school uniform plays a valuable role in creating a sense of common identity among pupils and reducing visible inequalities, too many schools still require an unacceptably high number of branded items.”
“A school would have to operate within the limits of these requirements, so it would probably choose not to introduce these things mid-year. It is really not that complex.”
“Therefore, clause 23 limits the number of compulsory branded items of uniform that schools can require to three or fewer. To provide additional flexibility, secondary schools and middle schools will have the option to include an additional compulsory branded item if one of the items is a tie. These limits will enable more parents to buy more generic items from a range of retailers, allowing them to best control the cost of their children’s school uniform.”
“Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask that the Committee agrees to these amendments. I now turn to clause 23. As we have said, the cost of school uniforms, especially branded items, has long been a major concern for parents. Despite the Department for Education issuing statutory guidance on the cost of school uniforms, too many schools continue to require excessive numbers of branded items, with some schools still requiring 10 or more different branded items. As I said earlier, having a small number of branded uniform items plays a valuable role in creating a sense of common identity among pupils and in reducing visible inequalities. However, branded items are often more expensive, so it is right to limit their use.”
“The amendment addresses the same drafting omission as Government amendment 8 and will ensure that all forms of schools established in a hospital, including academies, are correctly excluded from the requirement to have regard to guidance on the cost of school uniforms. As previously stated, this Government recognise that schools established in a hospital operate in a specialised medical environment. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to bind any hospital schools to follow guidance that does not reflect the unique context in which they operate. Government amendment 10 also ensures there is a consistent definition of “relevant schools” across the two legislative measures in relation to school uniform: the duty to have regard to guidance on the cost of school uniform and the new statutory limit on compulsory branded items.”
“Government amendment 9 is a further technical amendment to ensure that in the revised definition of “relevant schools” in this clause there is no double exclusion of community or foundation special schools established in a hospital from the new limits on branded school uniform items. A double exclusion might have caused confusion. Therefore, the new drafting will ensure that such schools are only excluded once. Government amendment 10 is intended to correct an omission in the existing legislation in relation to hospital schools being required to have regard to statutory guidance that the Secretary of State must issue on the cost of school uniform.”
“Given their nature, the vast majority of hospital schools do not require any form of uniform, branded or otherwise. We therefore want to avoid this legislation placing unnecessary obligations or administrative burdens on such schools. The Government recognise that schools established in a hospital operate in a very specialised medical environment, and it would therefore be inappropriate to bind any hospital schools to requirements or regulations that do not reflect the unique context in which they operate. Under the current wording of the Bill, some forms of schools established in a hospital—most notably, those established as academies or alternative provision academies—would not be excluded. Government amendment 8 corrects that omission.”
“The proposal is fairly straightforward. It allows, for example, a secondary school to retain a branded tie and blazer while still being able to brand up to two items—either PE kit or daywear—according to their circumstances. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston not to press his amendment 32. I now turn to Government amendments 8, 9 and 10, a group of technical and drafting amendments focused on the interaction between this Bill’s measures on school uniform and their application to hospital schools. Government amendment 8 corrects a drafting omission, ensuring that all forms of schools established in a hospital are correctly excluded from the new statutory limit on compulsory branded school uniform items.”
“Member for Twickenham will be aware that we face hard choices about the best use of public money. There are therefore no current plans to go further on this issue. Tax changes are properly made at fiscal events and in the context of the overall public finances. I therefore respectfully urge the hon. Member not to press the new clause.”
“Member for Twickenham, which aims to remove VAT on school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16. As I have already stated, the Government are committed to cutting the cost of school uniform for families. That is why the Government have chosen to support families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. Under current VAT rules, all children’s clothing and footwear designed for children under the age of 14, including school uniforms, already has a zero rate of VAT, meaning that no VAT is charged on the sale of those items. The UK is one of only two among the 37 OECD member countries to maintain a VAT relief for children’s clothing, which costs the Exchequer £2 billion a year. Going further would come at a cost to the Exchequer and I know that the hon.”
“This is not about the state interfering in the day-to-day running of schools. Schools can still choose which items to brand as long as they adhere to the legislative limit. They will also still be able to include the optional tie, if they wish. School uniforms should be designed to make pupils look and feel smarter, not to make families poorer. Schools will still be able to set and enforce appropriate uniform policies within these limits. I know that many schools and school leaders are already rising to this challenge, and I am sure that many more will welcome the clarity that this measure brings, ensuring that the cost of uniform is never a barrier to pupils accessing school life. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill. Finally, I move to new clause 35, tabled by the hon.”
“We are absolutely confident that this limit will make a difference to many families up and down the country, including in Portsmouth North. Some schools already operate within these limits; I know that many schools have gone to great lengths to operate within the spirit of the guidance already in place, to try to minimise uniform costs for families. However, that is not universal, and we think that the clarity this measure will bring will ensure that those benefits are not just for some children in some schools, but for all children in all schools right across England. We also believe that the measure balances reducing costs for parents with ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience all the benefits that a uniform that includes a number of branded items can bring.”
“The consistency that that brings to the market will benefit all parties. Reducing local authority spend on agency workers will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees. I hope that the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.”
“It will strengthen the existing regulatory framework for the use of agency social workers in local authority children’s social care services, which is currently set out in statutory guidance. It will also extend the framework beyond the social workers to the wider local authority children’s social care workforce, such as agency workers delivering targeted early intervention or family help. We remain committed to working in partnership with stakeholders across the children’s social care system, including agencies, to ensure that the proposals implemented are proportionate and effective. The clause provides a duty to consult ahead of introducing regulations. Regulations will make it clear to local authorities, the recruitment sector and agency workers what they should expect from each other.”
“Clause 18, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, will allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. This clause ensures that, while agency workers remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they do not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services.”
“We commit to working in partnership with stakeholders across children’s social care, ensuring that any proposals that we introduce are proportionate and effective. We are also working with local authorities and regions on developing price caps. We will look at the data later this year, before introducing those changes, and the raised regulations will be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure. With those comments and queries responded to, I hope that Members feel that they can support the clause.”
“The framework focuses on social workers, but other Government Departments are working on the same issue. Guidance can be departed from in certain circumstances, so introducing regulations on the use of agency workers is appropriate and proportionate. It is important that we strengthen the regulatory framework on the use of agency workers in children’s social care to ensure that it is legally binding, so that we bring greater transparency and accountability to the use of agency workers, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire suggested. We will continuously consider the evidence, ensuring that we take an informed approach to those regulations. There is a statutory duty to consult before introducing regulations.”
“People who work in social care need the right environment so that they can thrive, personally and professionally. We recognise that regulation alone is not the answer, but the Government are supporting local authorities to attract and retain children’s social workers and provide positive working environments for all who work in children’s social care, because ultimately children will benefit. Local authorities will still be able to use agency workers if doing so is the most appropriate resourcing option and in line with the regulatory framework, but it is important to reduce local authority spend on agency staff and to allow local authorities to reinvest in the permanent children’s social care workforce. Statutory guidance that has already been issued on this matter has allowed the Government to act quickly to introduce a new framework.”
“I thank both hon. Members for their probing of the clause. No amendment has been tabled, and there seems to be general agreement that the principle is right. Over-reliance on agency workers contributes to workforce instability, which has implications for both the workforce and the children it is there to serve. It also puts pressure on local authority budgets. I thank both hon. Members for recognising the challenging but hugely valuable work of social workers, which is often unrecognised and un-thanked. It is good that we take the opportunity to put on record our collective gratitude to them for the difficult work that they do. Many local authorities are already demonstrating success in transitioning agency workers into their permanent workforces.”
“As is becoming more evident as the Committee progresses, the hon. Member is very focused on the detail. Obviously, that is something that we will work through as part of our development of the statutory regulations. We will consider developing price caps on a regional basis, but we will look at the evidence and consult as well. That is important, because I think we all agree in principle on the provision, and we will work hard and consult to ensure that we get it right. Question put and agreed to. Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: children aged 16 and 17 Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“The change means that where there has been ill treatment or wilful neglect by those providing care or support in regulated establishments, the law will support the relevant authorities in prosecuting the individuals and providers involved. I am sure we all want the right legal protections to be in place for all children, and for the law to support action being taken against those involved in abuse or neglect. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.”
“Clause 19 amends sections 20, 21 and 25 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. That Act protects over-18s in regulated social care settings and everyone provided with certain healthcare from ill treatment and wilful neglect, and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 protects all under-16s from cruelty, so if someone is under 16 or over 18 there is protection in place to prosecute perpetrators of abuse. However, there is a gap that means that carers or care providers involved in the wilful neglect of 16 and 17-year-olds in regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation cannot be prosecuted. We are therefore expanding the 2015 Act so that the offence includes protections for 16 and 17-years-olds.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. To answer his second question, the change will affect regulated establishments in children’s social care, including youth detention accommodation. It will therefore cover children’s homes, residential family centres, accommodation where holiday schemes for disabled children are provided, and supported accommodation settings. There are other measures already in place to protect all children, including 16 to 17-year-olds, against abuse and neglect within children’s social care settings and youth detention accommodation. This clause is specifically intended to address the current legal gap.”
“I will double-check on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, but my understanding is that they will be covered, given that they come within the remit of youth detention accommodation. I will certainly convey his point about wilful neglect being an aggravating factor within the criminal justice system as a query to the Ministry of Justice, as it may be worth considering with the change being brought through in this education legislation. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 Employment of children in England Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Our changes will also make it easier for children and their parents to understand what roles they can undertake, and for employers to know on what basis they can employ a child. They also mean that as types of work change, we will be able to restrict new types of employment that are not suitable for children more quickly. Additionally, we will be able to make previously restricted employments available for children, should changes in the way that they are carried out make them suitable. That will ensure that the legislation stays current. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.”
“Allowing children to work additional hours on a Sunday, and before and after school, will help them to benefit from additional suitable employment opportunities. Employment can contribute to a child’s development, introduce them to the world of work and develop key employability skills. The clause will also replace a power for local authorities to make byelaws in relation to child employment with a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the employment of children in England. Having a single set of regulations that apply to all children who work in England, rather than each local authority having its own byelaws, will ensure fairness in outcomes for all children in England.”
“The clause seeks to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. To help to develop this policy, we spoke to both children and employers. The changes in the clause are the ones that they told us they would like to see. The clause will require all children in England to have an employment permit in order to undertake suitable employment. The permit will make local authorities aware of the children working in their area. It will ensure that children are safeguarded as they undertake valuable employment, while still having access to their education. The measure will give more flexibility to children and employers in relation to when children can work, which will give children more opportunities to take up suitable employment while still ensuring that their health, development and education outcomes are supported.”
“Clause 20 will not change the overall number of hours that a child can work, but it will give children much greater flexibility to maximise the opportunities that hopefully will become available to them as this area becomes more clearly set out as part of the legislation. Employers and sector bodies have set out the difficulties in being able to offer employment to a child either on a normal trading day or when they experience peak demand when the child has worked their requisite two hours. That often closes down opportunities that children could easily have had and would have enjoyed having. Businesses would appreciate having those children as part of their team, but the restrictions in the current arrangements often make that difficult to accommodate.”
“Considering the level of agreement on this provision, there is a significant amount of interest and questions around it. It might help if I clarify that currently a child can work for a maximum of only two hours on a Sunday and up to 7 pm at night, which restricts employment opportunities. It may not make business sense to employ a child who is able to work only a very short shift. We spoke with children while developing this policy, and they were pretty universally of the view that they would like to have more flexibility in when they can work, not necessarily in the amount that they wish to work.”
“National employers will also hopefully be encouraged to employ children who are looking for these opportunities, as they will not be put off by inconsistencies around the country that create bureaucratic obstacles to opportunities. That will provide much-needed employment for businesses across the country. I hope that I have responded to the majority of concerns about this largely—I certainly get the impression—uncontested clause.”
“That leaves children, parents and businesses, which do not always operate within local authority boundaries, somewhat confused. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire pointed out, that can put employers off employing children, even where it might be to the benefit of both that these opportunities are available. Replacing the power for local authorities to make byelaws with the power for the Secretary of State to make these regulations will ensure fair outcomes for all children right across England. That means that a child, their parent or a business can know what work can be undertaken, and when and by whom, wherever they live in England.”