Preet Kaur Gill
MP for Birmingham Edgbaston · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“Gentleman will understand that this is an independent process, and it is not for the Government to comment on, nor intervene in, individual applications. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has also called for the inquiry to be paused or suspended while the CCRC is reviewing Miss Letby’s application.”
“The hon. Member makes some important, valid points. Of course, the Countess of Chester hospital will want to know the outcome of the inquiry. As she rightly says, the CQC has been in and has made lots of recommendations, especially because of the inadequate rating.”
“On top of their grief, they have been subject to a level of press scrutiny that would match anything we have faced as Members of this place. They have been left in limbo, waiting for answers.”
“In addition, we will legislate in this Parliament to enable the Health and Care Professions Council to begin to operate a statutory barring system for senior managers. The mechanism will enable the Health and Care Professions Council to prevent senior NHS leaders whose conduct is unacceptable from working again in senior roles.”
“The inquiry is now in the report-writing stage, and I have every confidence that the chair will consider all the evidence when drawing conclusions and writing her report and recommendations. I do not consider that there is a case to either amend or expand the terms of reference, based on the information currently available.”
“In March 2025, the chair refused the application and set out her reasons in detail. For transparency, that has been made available online. In her judgment, the chair considered, among other things, the question of fairness, and she was satisfied that the inquiry process had been fair and would not become unfair because there is a possibil…”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Preet Kaur Gill, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“That is what this Government want for children, young people and families in Shipley and across the country, and that is the system we are determined to build. Question put and agreed to.”
“Alongside that, we have commissioned an independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism to inform the longer-term changes needed for a more coherent and effective offer. Again, that report is due to be published at the end of July. The message to the country is this: we understand where the system is under pressure; we are being honest about the challenge; and we are acting where it matters most, which is on earlier help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has raised, clearer routes into CAMHS, more capacity in specialist care, and better support in the community. Every child deserves the chance to be well, stay in school, build relationships and look to the future with confidence.”
“Guidance has been issued for nought to five, and I think it is important that we have a statutory footing on phones in schools. The measures are all there to assist parents and professionals in navigating what I know, with the Online Safety Act, lots of young people are evidencing: the impact of online harms on mental health. To bring this all together, we are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England. The call for evidence is now live until 10 July. I urge hon. Members to please feed in and share that with their constituents, so that frontline services, experts and people with lived experience can help shape the next phase of reform.”
“Fourthly, we are acting on the drivers of the crisis as well as the consequences. Children’s mental health is shaped by what happens at home, in school, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley powerfully said—online and in their communities, which is why this cannot sit in the NHS alone. We are working across Government to tackle root causes, including taking action on social media and screen use, expanding perinatal mental health support and tackling inequalities and child poverty. As my hon. Friend has already stated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has undertaken a consultation on children’s online safety, which received more than 70,000 responses. That is a national conversation we need to have.”
“A modern service framework for children and young people up to the age of 18—up to 25 for those with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions—will set clear expectations about what services should provide and for whom, and how those services should work together across the pathway to improve outcomes. Thirdly, we are increasing capacity in specialist services. We have already delivered on our commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers for children and adults, three years ahead of schedule. Almost one in five are working directly in children and young people’s services, including within mental health support teams in schools and colleges—more than 10,000, actually—and in community CAMHS teams. Those staff are helping children and young people access support more quickly and closer to home.”
“Alongside that, the Government have provided more than £20 million of funding to early support hubs over the last three years. That will deliver more than 30,000 additional mental health interventions for children and young people. These hubs offer open-access, community-based help without requiring a clinical referral. I think that is very important. This year, the Government have also launched young futures hubs. The first eight early adopter hubs are now operating in Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, County Durham, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham and Tower Hamlets, with a further 42 hubs to follow across England over the coming years. Together, they will help young people get to the right support sooner. Secondly, we are improving consistency in navigation.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I will now set out what the Government are going to do to address the fragmented system that we all find. We will strengthen the whole pathway, not just one part of it—I think that is really important, from listening to my hon. Friend today. I also want to thank her for raising the subject of the NEET population—those not in education, employment or training—because none of this can be done in isolation; we have to work across Government if we want to truly address the fragmented system. First, we are expanding earlier intervention. We are accelerating access to NHS-funded mental health support teams in schools and colleges so that, by 2029, all pupils and learners will have access to that early support.”
“We are committed to improving access through local recovery, national improvement support and more provision through community services. To return to Doncaster, I have heard the concerns about long waits for repeat appointments and the problems with hearing aid provision. The trust has made progress, particularly for adult services. The paediatric service is improving and the waiting list is reducing, with external support in place while workforce training is completed. We will continue to work with local leaders to deliver timely appointments and reliable support, and we will go further still by reforming community audiology to shift more care from hospitals to communities, ensuring that our NHS is fit for the future. Question put and agreed to.”
“That is why, for the first time, we have set a clear target to reduce long waits for community health services, including community audiology services. By 2028-29, at least 80% of activity across community health services should take place within 18 weeks. To support the shift to neighbourhood health, we have asked systems to increase the capacity of community health services and to work to standardise the provision of core community services. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central for bringing forward this debate and for speaking up for her constituents. She mentioned the Doncaster school for deaf children and the Carr Fenton Foundation, and just how imperative it is that we deliver in areas like hers, which have such needs.”
“NHS England is developing new commissioning guidance for integrated care boards and providers on safe, high-quality and equitable paediatric audiology, covering service configuration, workforce, estates, equipment, data and safeguarding. By taking action on multiple fronts, we will restore performance and ensure that improvement continues. Finally, I turn to community audiology services, which are delivered in community settings and commissioned by integrated care boards, based on the needs of their local population. We know that community health services have the power to better align care with people’s day-to-day lives, but when it comes to community audiology, people are waiting far too long and there is local variation in services.”
“The paediatric hearing services improvement programme was established in 2023 to address the risks to paediatric diagnostic audiology across England, and as part of the programme progress has been made in improving the paediatric audiology service in Doncaster. I welcome the 2025 review of children’s hearing services, undertaken by Dr Camilla Kingdon and with a response under consideration. NHS England is committed to reviewing the future direction for high-quality, sustainable children’s hearing services, with clearer end-to-end pathways and shared priorities. The workforce requirements for hearing services are also being considered as part of the 10-year workforce plan. We know that clearer commissioning expectations help to drive consistency and equity across the country.”
“Four NHS trusts took part in 2024-25, and a further eight have joined in the last financial year, including Somerset, Leicester, Oxford and Gateshead. We have learnt that when local teams have been empowered to drive change, that has led to improvements in services. Improvement depends on having the right kit and environment as well, which is why the Government have invested £13 million in audiology equipment and facilities across 66 capital schemes. We are also expanding access by delivering more diagnostics and assessment in the community. Let me now turn to children’s audiology more broadly. As my hon. Friend said, it vital that children and young people can access timely, safe audiology services.”
“Audiology services are not only about diagnostics; for many people, this means long-term support providing rehabilitation, ongoing monitoring, treatment and support for a number of lifelong conditions, such as hearing therapy and hearing aid fitting and maintenance. That is why cutting waiting lists, including those for diagnostic tests, is a key priority for the Government. We are backing that priority with investment to help services to recover performance and improve the experience for patients, including their experience of audiology. We are improving and transforming NHS audiology services, for instance through a national improvement collaborative to test changes that improve access and patient experience.”
“The trust has recognised those problems and has put in place a recovery plan, including upgraded facilities and improved booking and tracking. I am told that most adult hearing services have recovered. As for children’s audiology, the backlog is also shrinking, and outside specialists are helping until the local team complete their training. The hospital is also using new digital tools and regular review meetings to keep track of performance and risks. Further development on the recovery plan will mean an improvement in audiology services and patients returning to be seen on time. The pressures that we have seen in Doncaster also reflect wider challenges across diagnostic and community services. When we talk about diagnostic audiology, we mean assessments to diagnose hearing and balance conditions.”
“That situation is a lose-lose: it is distressing for patients, and it is an inefficient use of clinical time. Let me be absolutely clear: it is not acceptable, and it must improve. I will now set out briefly what has happened, what actions have been taken, and what further progress we need to see. Doncaster’s audiology services have faced significant challenges, and I acknowledge that there were delays for hearing tests and follow-up appointments. I understand that one underlying issue has been insufficient numbers of staff who are fully trained to carry out all the specialist assessments. That created a backlog, with neighbouring services and external specialists supporting the most urgent cases. The NHS region has prioritised cases that involve safeguarding or developmental concerns.”
“For many, that is not just inconvenient; it can be isolating and can affect confidence, independence and wellbeing. Families and carers also feel the strain as they try to navigate appointments and periods without support. We will ensure that that changes. Like my hon. Friend, this Government will not stop until everyone has timely access to essential services such as audiology, as part of our mission to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future. I want to start with Doncaster. I was shocked to learn from my hon. Friend that constituents have faced long waits, repeat appointments, and periods without working hearing aids. It is also concerning that some people have been asked to return because the right assessment or adjustment was not available on the first occasion.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) for securing the debate. I commend her advocacy on this issue, and thank her for all her tireless work on behalf of her constituents in bringing it to the House's attention. I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked a business question on the subject during the last parliamentary Session. It is clear that there is strong local concern across Doncaster, and I am immensely proud to respond directly today during my first debate as a Minister. Let me begin by acknowledging what many constituents experience when audiology services are not working well. It is deeply frustrating when people need a hearing assessment, a follow-up appointment or a hearing aid repair and cannot get it within a reasonable time.”
“I want to pick up on that point. We have heard a lot of evidence today. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that there were so many inconsistencies and so much confusion about the process that the Prime Minister was absolutely right to build back trust in that process and make the decisions he has made?”
“Surely there can be no situation where the hon. Gentleman thinks officials should not flag concerns with Ministers or Prime Ministers, who are fundamentally accountable to this House and to the British public. What we are talking about here is accountability.”
“The House and the public understand the importance of independent security vetting and why sensitive personal information must be protected, but they are also shocked that decisions of such significance could be taken without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have worked closely with the Prime Minister, and I know how seriously he takes national security and accountability to this House. Will he set out what steps he will take to remove any ambiguity, so that where there are serious concerns, those risks are flagged to Ministers, ensuring that accountability to this House and to the country is always upheld?”
“This is about how the United Kingdom delivers its public services; it is not a theological discussion, as the Office for National Statistics has told all public bodies that they can use only—this is really important—the current ethnicity data categories for service delivery. Time and again, national reviews have shown that Sikhs and Jews are missing from the datasets that shape decisions about public services. In 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee heard that the Government’s race disparity audit had identified around 340 datasets across Government, yet not one included data on Sikhs. My own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews.”
“This is not a technical oversight; it is a structural problem with the way public bodies and our Government collect ethnicity data—one that prevents us from understanding inequality, recognising discrimination and properly protecting communities the law says we must protect. In December 2024, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, the Public Body Ethnicity Data (Inclusion of Jewish and Sikh Categories) Bill. The Bill provides that where a public body collects data about ethnicity for the purpose of delivering public services, it must include specific Sikh and Jewish categories as options for a person’s ethnic group.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Sikh and Jewish ethnicity data collection by public bodies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her role. For more than 40 years, Sikhs and Jews have been recognised in law as both ethnic and religious groups. That is long-established; it was confirmed by the 1983 Mandla v. Dowell-Lee judgment and reaffirmed by the Equality Act 2010. Yet, in practice, our systems still fail to acknowledge what the law clearly states. Nearly six decades after racial discrimination laws were introduced, public bodies still do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews.”
“User need has been clearly evidenced by the plethora of evidence available, and that simply cannot be ignored by the ONS.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I will come on to why this is important in practice. We are both legislators in this House, and he is right: we both take our responsibilities very seriously and want to see all communities treated fairly under the law, so we must implement it. I really value his intervention and thank him for it. As I said, my own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews. As the hon. Member has just said, the only information collected is religious data, but religious data is inconsistent and incomplete, and is rarely used in designing or delivering services. It also excludes people who are ethnically Sikh or Jewish but do not practise their faiths.”
“Absolutely; I think that is really important. I have a staffer who, equally, is Jewish and does not feel that he is religious, and he wants the option to tick his ethnicity because, as he says, “I am Jewish.” This is simply giving people the option; no one is forcing anyone to tick any other box—they can tick any box they think reflects their ethnicity. But given the Equality Act, and given race hate and the rise in antisemitism, we absolutely should be collecting ethnicity data. My staffer should not be invisible.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I really value his expertise in this House. Health inequalities are an area where we really see this issue being played out. The NHS is doing some directed work with the Jewish community; I know that, because it is happening in my constituency. That is because many Jewish women of Ashkenazi descent are predisposed to breast cancer, for example, and I can give lots of similar examples about the Sikh community. That is why we must consider the real-life experiences of those in our communities—they are not only invisible, but the health inequalities they face are not being addressed, as a result of the situation we find ourselves in.”
“I am grateful to the Birmingham Labour group for its leadership on this issue, but will it really take every council in the country passing its own motion for Sikhs and Jews to be counted? What we are asking for is simple: fairness. For more than 40 years, Sikhs and Jews have been recognised as ethnic groups in law. It is time for public bodies to recognise them in practice and for legislators to implement the law.”
“I gently encourage Ministers across Government to consider whether the GSS harmonised standard is adequate for them to meet the equalities duties. To conclude, this campaign has the support a broad coalition: the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Sikh Federation, the Sikh Council UK, the UK Gurdwara Alliance, many health professionals, local police and local government. Those organisations understand the lived reality of their communities. They see the consequences of missing data every single day in healthcare, public safety, education, housing and employment. In June last year, Birmingham city council became the first local authority in England to include Sikh and Jewish ethnic categories when collecting data and delivering services.”
“The ONS is funded by the taxpayer and consists of civil servants. Civil servants must deliver for the public. In January, I tabled a question on ethnicity pay gap reporting and received an interesting response. The Minister who responded, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), stated that the recent consultation on ethnicity and disability pay-gap reporting considered whether ethnicity data should be collected following the GSS and ONS current harmonised standard, which does not include specific “Sikh” and “Jewish” categories. Will the Minister outline what provisions would be available for Jews and Sikhs to challenge ethnicity pay gap reporting if they are not included? This also demonstrates that some Departments recognise that they are not required to follow the GSS framework.”
“Many Departments dodged the question, telling me to wait for the ONS’s response to the consultation later this year to see whether Departments fed in. How does that give Jewish and Sikh communities any faith that, while they are dying disproportionately, we in this House are committed to addressing that inequality? It is a simple question. This is about transparency. I am grateful that the Home Office confirmed that it provided an organisational response. The relationship between the Government and the ONS should be reciprocal. These Departments hold the data, but many of them say that there is no data. They deliver services that are not directed at these groups, so they should be working with the ONS to push for better data that ensures that they can meet their legal equalities duties.”
“In a recent meeting, the ONS made it clear that it expects the Government to tell it their data needs, yet in all my correspondence on this issue over past years, Ministers have responded by stating that they are relying on the GSS and ONS. Let me be clear: it is right that our country’s official statistics are independent of Government. However, at some point the relationship has shifted, and we have lost our way. The Government should obviously not be able to write their own scorecard, but that does not mean that Government Departments should not engage proactively with the ONS to outline what frameworks they need to best serve the British public. I tabled questions to every Department asking whether they fed into the consultation on the harmonised standard. The responses I have gotten back have been hugely disappointing.”
“I am therefore keen to understand what the Government are saying to the 165,000 Jews and Sikhs who clearly sent a message to the ONS and Government that they want the option to tick “Jewish” or “Sikh”. I am not advocating or forcing anyone to identify in a certain way. Respondents would still be able to record their ethnicity as they choose, as would any person from any background. The question is whether the GSS and ONS give greater weight to established legal precedent or a few dissenting voices in a focus group. That brings me to the relationship between the Government, the ONS and Parliament more broadly.”
“In the run-up to the 2021 census, the ONS pushed aside calls for a Sikh ethnicity tick box, citing divisions in the community—an argument that I am disappointed has been repeated since. I remind the House and the ONS that nearly 100,000 Sikhs and 65,000 Jews ticked “other” and wrote in their ethnicity in the census. That is hugely significant, because this huge number of respondents from the two communities is far bigger than the number of responses to any consultation, focus group or exercise that the ONS may choose to carry out. Citizens want democracy to work for them, so that they can have trust in our political system. That is our duty as legislators.”
“The Minister should signal to the GSS that, as legislators, we expect the starting point of its considerations to be legally recognised ethnic groups such as Sikhs and Jews, given the protections in the Equality Act 2010. The second criterion—assessing whether there is a lack of alternative sources of information for the group—similarly demonstrates the ONS’s short-sightedness. Although many Sikhs may choose to record their religion as Sikh, the ONS knows that the question is optional, is not used to inform policymaking or service delivery, and is irrelevant to the execution of ethnicity equalities duties. Finally, the subjective “acceptability” criterion does not give me faith that the ONS has learned any lessons from past oversights.”
“In fact, the ONS knows this, and has publicly acknowledged it. Surely the GSS, led by the ONS, needs to consider the bigger picture and form a harmonised standard with its implementation in mind. If Sikhs and Jews are legally protected ethnicities, public bodies have a legal duty to monitor their outcomes and deliver services to address inequality. The GSS should want to develop a harmonised standard that allows public bodies to meet their legal obligations. The ONS has claimed in meetings that there are apparently hundreds of potential ethnicities that could be included, but in the landmark 1983 case Mandla v. Dowell-Lee, the Law Lords made life easier by establishing crucial criteria for defining an ethnic group.”
“Despite assurances to the contrary, I was disappointed that the criteria were almost identical to those used to decide the categories for the last census, in 2021, in which Sikhs and Jews were in the last four groups to be considered from a list of 55. Those should not be treated as the same exercise. The harmonisation standard is primarily intended to assist public bodies to meet their equalities responsibility—I say that again: to meet their equalities responsibility—and best serve all Britain’s diverse communities. The purpose of the census is, of course, much broader. With that in mind, I was struck by the lack of any legal test. Sikhs and Jews have been legally recognised as ethnicities for decades. We know that religion data is not used by public bodies that implement this standard.”
“Why does the Minister think the ONS is treating Sikh and Jewish communities in this way, given the levels of hate that they have recently faced and the decades they have spent campaigning for fairness and equality? After many meetings and much correspondence from me over the past eight years, the ONS has acknowledged that ethnicity standards must reflect the United Kingdom’s diversity. The Government Statistical Service, led by the ONS, recently consulted on additional categories for the ethnicity harmonised standard, but the criteria for the evaluation of the responses, which were published last week, leave me apprehensive.”
“The lack of accurate data collection for the offence of racially aggravated hate crime is hiding the true severity of anti-Sikh and anti-Jewish hate crime, which means that the police and the Government cannot put proper targeted protections in place. The Sikh community is asking the Government, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government why they are not recognising and recording anti-Sikh hate crimes. What are they saying to that? That it is because the ONS asks them to only use the existing ethnic categories. The ONS does not seem to understand that Jews and Sikhs face racial hatred, which is distinct from religious hatred. How are we meant to track and combat this religious hatred without data?”
“So the racially aggravated rapes that those two Sikh women were subjected to were not recorded as anti-Sikh hate crimes. As I said earlier, of the 9% of hate crimes that were recorded as being religiously aggravated, Home Office data shows a 20% increase in crimes specifically targeting Sikhs. Are we saying that Jewish and Sikh victims do not matter? I think that is a reasonable question for both communities to ask. The Jewish community continues to face horrific abuse, having the highest rate of religious hate crime of any group. The terrorist attack at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester was an awful reminder that there is still much more to be done to fight antisemitism and keep British Jews safe.”
“If the evidence from this work is not compelling enough for the ONS, then I really do not know what will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) stated, we have recently seen horrific incidents of anti-Sikh hate crime in the west midlands. There have been two separate racially aggravated rapes of Sikh women, including one just outside my constituency, and a brutal physical attack on two Sikh taxi drivers. Of the 115,990 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales between April 2024 and March 2025, 71% were recorded as being “racially aggravated”. Yet despite the Home Office requiring police forces to provide the ethnicity of victims since April 2021, we only know the ethnicity of victims in 40% of offences, and within that 40%, Sikh and Jewish categories are not offered.”
“It is not optional for arm’s length bodies or Government Departments; the law is the law. Covid-19 showed us what is at stake when communities are not counted. When the ONS belatedly analysed covid outcomes by religious group, it revealed that Sikhs had died at disproportionately high rates, even adjusting for deprivation, region and other socioeconomic factors. Critically, Sikhs were affected differently from other south Asian groups, proving that the existing ethnic categories failed to capture the reality, and for the Jewish community, the death rate was almost twice the rate of the general population. If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, we must be serious about collecting accurate data. After all, it is about life and death.”
“My hon. Friend does some fantastic work locally with her communities, and I know that she supports this campaign and really understands the real-life impact it has. She talked about anti-Sikh hate. We have seen a rise in hate crime across communities, but it is especially marked in the latest Home Office data. The data shows that there has been an increase of 20% in religious hate against the Sikh community. I will go on to say a bit more about how hate crime is recorded for both the Jewish community and the Sikh community. When public bodies do not count a community, that community is invisible. That is clearly the case for Jews and Sikhs. My Bill addresses that gap. It would give Jews and Sikhs the simple and fair recognition that the law already promises. As legislators, it is our duty to ensure that the law is upheld and implemented.”
“Can I seek clarity from the Minister? All the correspondence I have had from the Home Office says that it has been told to use existing categories in the census, according to the ONS, and that is why it does not collect the data.”
“After 14 years of Conservative austerity, many communities like mine have seen the assets that matter most to them hollowed out. I welcome the Government’s community right to buy, because putting local people in control of local assets is simply common sense. In my constituency, Woodgate and Bartley Green will receive £20 million through Pride in Place funding over the next decade thanks to this Government. Does the Minister agree that tackling barriers such as access to finance will help communities to take ownership of local assets and rebuild neighbourhoods?”
“As I have seen time and again in my constituency, however, bad actors have been allowed to exploit the system and profit from the neglect of people who are suffering.”
“The council is clear that that level far exceeds local need, yet the sector continues to expand at pace. In September 2024, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on this topic. I was very pleased to hear the ambition of the newly elected Government to finally get a grip on the wild west sector, but unfortunately progress has been slow, and we are here again. Many people who enter supported accommodation do so because they have nowhere else to turn. Public funding is there to give them safety, stability and a pathway to independent living. When it works, it saves lives and money. As the National Housing Federation reports, quality providers save the public purse approximately £3.5 billion annually by alleviating pressures on the NHS, social care services and the criminal justice system.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. Since I was elected in 2017, issues with supported exempt accommodation have been persistent in parts of my constituency. When supported housing works, it changes lives: it helps prison leavers turn a corner, helps people get off the streets, and helps those battling addiction or mental illness rebuild their lives. But in Birmingham the system is not just being abused; it is broken. Supported housing provision in Birmingham has tripled since 2018. Today, nearly 33,000 people live in 11,200 supported exempt properties, and the cost has risen to almost £400 million—about half the entire country’s exempt spending.”
“Everyone agrees that people fleeing abuse, leaving prison or care, or battling mental health and addiction deserve somewhere safe that they are connected to and that truly helps them rebuild their lives. Our communities deserve to feel safe and taxpayers deserve to know that their money is protecting people, not enriching those who exploit them. The stories of fear, failure and sometimes outright abuse are heartbreaking. We cannot look away any longer.”
“Local authorities are still saying that without new regulations to define minimum standards of support and empower councils to crack down on exploitative providers, vulnerable people and taxpayers will continue to be ripped off. The statutory guidance is an important first step, but it will not fix the problem that my constituents are facing today unless we move at pace to bring in these regulations. None of that is intended to dismiss the many excellent providers that deliver high-quality support every day—many of them are doing a really good job; they play a crucial role and change lives—but the sector has also attracted landlords who see vulnerable people as a source of income rather than a responsibility. Without firm oversight, those operators undermine good practice, exploit residents and damage our communities.”