Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The House of Lords has identified clear gaps and proposed practical solutions, and has sent improvements back to us. The Lords has acted to put in place clear safeguards, and the Government respond by stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Let us take Lords amendment 38. The Lords were clear that they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government have chosen to strip that out, and replace it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If the Government agree that there is a problem, and Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it?
Similarly, Lords amendment 102 was straightforward. It said that high-performing schools delivering good outcomes and in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate. The Government have rejected that safeguard. Instead, they offer softer language, asking the adjudicator to “have regard” to certain factors, but “have regard” is not a protection. It does not guarantee that parental preference will carry any weight. I ask the Minister directly: why remove a clear safeguard for high-performing schools and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? Why take out measures that provide clarity, certainty and protection, and replace them with looser powers and softer language? Once again, we see the same approach—sensible safeguards that have been put forward are being swept aside by this Government. That is why I cannot support the Government’s position at this stage, and why I urge Ministers to think again.
Sir Roger Gale
I have a very personal interest in this: I have five grandchildren, ranging in age from 15 to nine, and there are another five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group living with my family. I want to see all of those young people protected. I understand peer pressure only too well. I understand that if one child has a smartphone, every child has to have a smartphone, or they feel left out. However, I know from all the surveys that have been carried out that the overwhelming majority of young people are crying out for guidelines, and for the ban that will make them all feel the same, and not feel excluded.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, we have the opportunity in the House of Commons, through this vehicle that is available to us, to take action this day, not in three months’ time, six months’ time or two years’ time. If we do not take this opportunity, a generation of young people will suffer, and we will be responsible. There is no need for that to happen.
Geriatric though I may be, I understand the difference in definition between a smartphone and a brick phone. It is perfectly possible for any child who has to have a phone to have a brick phone, at very modest cost, so that they can communicate on medically essential matters, or if there are caring issues. That is not a problem. We are not talking about brick phones; we are talking about smartphones.
SEND Funding
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak on a matter so close to the hearts of parents, carers, teachers and pupils in Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and across West Sussex: the urgent need for equitable and sustainable funding for special educational needs and disabilities.
Since 2015, the number of EHCPs in West Sussex has risen dramatically, from 3,362 to 7,684 in 2024, an increase of 128%. That surge mirrors an England-wide trend, where the number of EHCPs has grown by over 70% since 2018. That equates to about 180,000 additional high-needs pupils. Local mainstream schools, like Bishop Tufnell and Edward Bryant, report being stretched to capacity. They rely on fundraising from charities merely to maintain basic SEN provision, while increasing staff shortages and rising national insurance costs exacerbate burnout. Nationally, high-needs spending has risen to roughly £11 billion, but with pupil numbers growing faster than funding, per pupil support has actually fallen by a third in real terms.
The Government have recognised that pressure. A capital investment of £740 million aims to support the creation of 10,000 additional SEND places, including in specialist units in mainstream schools, and a further £1 billion is being allocated to support 44,500 mainstream school placements by 2028 under the high-needs national funding formula. However, even with that funding, experts warn of a ticking time bomb, as councils, including West Sussex, face soaring deficits that could reach £5 billion by 2026. Until 2018-19, the council was in a surplus, but since then, the exponential rise in need has put immense pressure on the system.
I have asked the Leader of the House to facilitate a debate on a sustainable model for SEND funding that ensures that local authorities like West Sussex receive adequate per-head resources; that delivers timely funding adjustments as EHCP numbers grow; and that supports retention of specialist staff and inclusive practices in mainstream settings. I urge the House to commit to sustainable and future-proofed funding.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It is vital for turning around the current situation faced by far too many parts of the country. There is not sufficient mainstream inclusion for children with special educational needs, there are not enough specialist units as part of mainstream school inclusion, and we do not have the specialist places needed, so I will, of course, take away the hon. Gentleman’s specific example.
Alison Griffiths
In West Sussex, EHCP requests are running at over 120 per month. Will the Secretary of State’s SEND reforms include measures that could make it harder to get an EHCP, potentially making it harder for children to qualify for special school places?
Skills England
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very interesting point. I have not grasped the whole of that issue, so I would be happy to have a further conversation with him about it.
The lack of a clear plan has led to confusion and widespread skills shortages, which hinder economic growth. The lack of basic skills among adults and reduced employer investment limit our ability to meet domestic skills needs. Too many people have been unable to access the benefits of quality post-16 education and are more likely to face unemployment, lower wages and poorer health. That is why meeting the skills needs of the next decade is central to delivering the Government’s five missions: economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy. We aim to create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system that supports people of all ages, breaks down barriers to opportunity and drives economic growth.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On economic growth, nearly 50% of UK businesses have experienced a cyber-security breach in the past 12 months, and cyber-attacks cost the UK economy £27 billion annually. The country faces a shortage of 93,000 cyber-security professionals, so does the Minister agree that cyber-security skills development should be prioritised in Skills England’s agenda?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Lady for that important and pertinent point. Skills England’s very purpose—[Interruption.] Indeed, I will come on to speak about that. It will ensure that there is training when employers identify skills gaps and those jobs are needed.
Skills England will ensure that we have the highly trained workforce we need to meet the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade, and it will be aligned with the upcoming industrial strategy. That is a critical part of the Government’s mission to raise growth sustainably across the country, support people to get better jobs and improve their living standards. Skills England will provide an authoritative assessment of national and regional skills needs in the economy now and in the future. It will combine the best available statistical data with insights generated by employers and other key stakeholders. It will ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access, which will align with skills gaps and what employers need. As part of that, it will identify what training should be available via the new growth and skills levy, which will replace the rigid apprenticeship levy, as many have been calling for, to ensure that levy-funded training delivers value for money, meets the needs of businesses and helps to kick-start economic growth.