“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members, as well as those in the Public Gallery, for their attendance. On Thursday, we will celebrate one year since the For Women Scotland judgment. That was a landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court. It clarified something that frankly should never have needed testing in the courts: that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. The ruling was a victory for the rights of women and girls; it affirmed that being a woman is a matter of biology not paperwork, and it should have ended years of uncertainty around sex-based protections.

The judgment confirmed what most people already know instinctively: biological sex matters. It matters in sport, prisons, healthcare and education. It matters for women’s safety, dignity and privacy. No amount of paperwork, policy or self-identification can change that reality. I commend the brave women who led the legal challenge. They persevered in the face of intense opposition, and finally common sense prevailed.

The Minister for Women and Equalities claimed:

“This ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 945.]

On paper, it has done so, but if we step outside the courtroom and into workplaces across the country, that clarity often evaporates. Instead of confidence, we see utter confusion. There is still an invisible hierarchy of rights in many workplaces. The rights of biological men who identify as women are still being prioritised over the rights of actual women. Hospitals and sports centres are still allowing biological men into female-only spaces.

Even parts of the civil service, which is supposed to be the bastion of political neutrality, are still allowing trans-identifying males to use female toilets. Government Departments should be leading by example, not presiding over unlawful and out-of-date policies. The law is clear, the facts are clear, and the refusal to act is a choice. Meanwhile, women who uphold biological reality are still being challenged, disciplined and subjected to exhausting legal proceedings. One year after the For Women Scotland ruling, Government Ministers are still dodging this topic because it is politically uncomfortable.

As the charity Sex Matters has said so well,

“Complying with the law is not a culture war”.

One year later, we are still waiting for the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice before Parliament. That will require businesses and public bodies to protect women-only spaces. I welcome the Minister’s written statement earlier today confirming that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That is a long-overdue development, following many months of excuses. One could be forgiven for thinking that this debate and the events planned for this week have sparked that development.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the point about the anniversary and the statement from the Minister for Women and Equalities that she intends to lay the guidance in a matter of weeks, will my hon. Friend join me in expressing the hope that that will be the long-overdue point at which we see a step change in Government attitudes to reflect the biological facts that society understands and knows?

[Carla Lockhart]

I sincerely hope my hon. Friend is right and that the Government will do the right thing as per the law.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. Does she feel, as I do, that a lack of political courage is what has delayed the new guidance? That lack of political courage has fallen on the heads of people having to make these decisions, such as nurses on wards, people working in sports centres and the like. They do not have the Government guidance to stand behind and say, “This is what the law says. This is what I’ve got to do”, so they are having to make decisions and then take the flak and sometimes abuse from people who are disappointed by their choice.

[Carla Lockhart]

I will certainly move on to some examples where there has been a great personal cost to folks who have had to lead the way on this issue.

One year later, we still need clarity on workplace regulations. Workplaces are in limbo because the revised code of practice will not even apply to them. One year later, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce new guidance specifically for the NHS. Last April, he promised that it would be published within weeks. The silence is deafening. These delays speak for themselves. This is not a grey area; it is not complicated. It is a failure to act on a simple legal and biological truth. Women’s safety is not a political plaything, and it should never be treated as one. The lack of progress comes at a real human cost to women across the UK.

I recently hosted Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses here in Parliament, and I am delighted that they are in the Public Gallery watching proceedings. They found themselves in the eye of the storm simply for upholding women’s rights. They are dedicated NHS professionals, not campaigners, yet they were hounded at work and dragged through the courts, not for wrongdoing, but for stating a basic biological fact. Their testimonies are deeply moving. Some of them are mothers of young children, carrying the strain not just at work, but at home.

After Jennifer Melle referred to a biological male and convicted paedophile as “Mr”, she was suspended for two years, unable to work, and she was threatened with revocation of her licence to practice. Where was her nursing union, which should have stood with her in her hour of need? It was missing in action, afraid to counter the wokeness within. Jennifer believes that what happened to her was a punishment for whistleblowing. She said:

“I did not always show it, but I was deeply traumatised by what had happened to me…I lived under fear, anxiety, and the possibility of losing the job I loved.”

When we compare Jennifer Melle’s case with the Darlington nurses’ case, we can see a pattern emerging. After a biological male was allowed to use their changing room, the Darlington nurses raised legitimate concerns about privacy and safety. Instead of being listened to, they were told they needed to be “re-educated” and to “broaden their mindset”. They were left with no other option but to take legal action. These nurses were already working flat out, caring for others, holding the system together and doing their job with skill and dedication every single day. That should be enough. They should not have been forced to fight for their legal rights.

Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses have shown tremendous courage and conviction, but let us be honest, that has come at a price: a personal toll, a professional toll, time, stress and reputation. Despite their legal victories, the punishment has been in the process. Women across the country are watching these legal cases unfolding and drawing the obvious conclusion: “Keep your head down or risk your livelihood.” The result is a chilling effect that should trouble every Member of this House.

Women are self-censoring. They are being forced to choose between telling the truth and keeping their jobs. They see colleagues hauled before tribunals, threatened with professional sanctions and subjected to reputational harm. Understandably, they often decide that it is simply not worth the risk. Bethany Hutchison, one of the Darlington nurses, put it this way:

“A culture of fear took over, not among those breaking safeguarding norms, but among the women raising concerns. Many vulnerable colleagues, often the breadwinners in their households, felt intimidated into dropping their complaints, until only eight of us remained.”

That is what happens when an institution closes rank and sidelines women’s voices.

It should not be down to individual women to contest gender ideology in the workplace. The Government should be backing women all the way, ensuring that they are treated with the safety and dignity that they deserve. Instead, a whole year has passed and still those on the frontline are being left to navigate these complex and sensitive issues alone. Silence is not neutral; it sends a clear message that women’s rights come second to political sensitivities and noisy activists. A ruling that exists only on paper is not enough. The Government must act, not with warm words, but with real, practical guidance that ensures that women are protected, not punished, for asserting their rights.

To briefly address the position in Northern Ireland, it is quite frankly extraordinary that we are even having to contemplate a different application of the ruling within the United Kingdom. The suggestion that the Windsor framework could create divergence on something as fundamental as the definition of a woman raises serious questions about sovereignty and equal rights across this country. Women in Northern Ireland should not have less clarity or protection than women in England, Scotland or Wales. I call on the Minister to give absolute clarity that this UK Government will stand up for women in Northern Ireland.

I am glad that, despite some of the noise and legal challenges around this issue, our Education Minister has moved to release guidance to schools. He made it clear that single-sex spaces in schools should be based on biological sex and that the safety, dignity and privacy of girls must be protected. That was a proportionate and practical response to the law as it stands and I welcome it. That stands in stark contrast to the delays that we are seeing elsewhere.

I end with three requests of the Government. First, I urge the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the EHRC’s updated code of practice before this House as a matter of urgency—no more prevaricating; no more delay. While the Minister has today finally indicated that that will happen in May, we must ask why clarity has not been provided far sooner. Secondly, I urge the Minister to provide guidance for workplaces. Employers must be left in no doubt that single-sex spaces are reserved for people of the same biological sex. No employee should be compelled to use a person’s preferred pronouns.

Thirdly, I urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fulfil his promise and issue guidance on single-sex spaces in the NHS specifically. In the absence of leadership from the Government, others have already stepped in. The Darlington Nursing Union and the Christian Legal Centre have already produced draft guidance for NHS trusts. It is ready, workable and would help ensure that no more women are forced to endure what Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses faced. I thank Christian Concern for its support for Jennifer and the Darlington nurses.

Let us be clear: the For Women Scotland ruling was a victory on paper, but in many cases it still needs implementing in practice. Biology should not be disputed in any sector. A woman is not a feeling. A woman is not an identity. A woman is a biological reality. We must act now to ensure that women are heard, protected and respected.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a slightly different way. There is something called the 80:20 rule, which states that, in pretty much anything in life, we should put 80% of our effort into 20% of situations. The vast majority of the time, it is really easy to deal with situations, including the one the hon. Gentleman just outlined. The hard work—the 80%—comes in 20% of the cases. It might not be that exact ratio, but a lot of the time we have to work a lot harder to deal with the cases that are in the margins and harder to determine. I know that from my past work in IT, but it applies to lots of other things.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that he would be instantly recognisable as a man, and would be able to use facilities for men, and I would not disagree, but there are many situations—certainly a minority, but they should still be handled with care—where it is not as easy to determine. As a country that is caring, we should not ignore those situations. How a country or society looks after its most vulnerable people, who are usually part of minority groups, is how it should be judged, so I suggest that we need to take care on this issue.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; we are utterly opposed. Does she agree that the cases involving Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses are examples of this very issue? Someone looked like a male standing in the changing room when they were referred to as “Mr”, but these people had to go through the courts to prove it. That is wrong.

[Marie Goldman]

That is exactly why we need the Government to come forward with proper guidance—so that organisations can work through this properly and understand when they are working within the rules, and so that they do not have to reinvent everything for themselves. We do not have that guidance, and it is desperately needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank all hon. Members for their participation. I want to thank the Minister, but she completely avoided the question about Northern Ireland, so I want her to write to me on that to ensure Northern Ireland women are protected in the same way as women in England, Scotland and Wales.

I especially thank the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for her efforts. She has often faced significant backlash, and yet she continues with courage. The Government need to realise that we are not going away until we see the change that every biological woman deserves. In Upper Bann and right across this United Kingdom, they deserve protection. We simply want the Government to reflect what the Supreme Court clarified: that “women” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. It should not need law or clarity. It is time that this wokeness and ideology was kicked into touch. A woman is an adult human female, and women across the UK deserve to be protected. I thank everyone for their time today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling.

Educational Outcomes: Disadvantaged Boys and Young Men

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is making a really powerful speech. Even one intentional male role model can transform boys’ engagement at school, yet 2.5 million children in the UK grow up without a father figure. The “Lost Boys” report from the Centre for Social Justice shows boys falling behind girls at every stage of education, with Northern Ireland facing very stark outcomes. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a need to promote more role models, so that boys can thrive in education and beyond?

[Alistair Strathern]

The hon. Member puts the point incredibly well, and I hope to be able to touch later on some of the powerful schemes available to already deliver some of these role models. They do not always have to be parents; that is not always going to be available for every child we seek to support.

When we consider these vulnerable young men, it is sometimes little wonder that they feel mistrustful and alienated from the system. They have reasons for that. All too often, media and social discourse can paint them sometimes as problems or, even worse, as abusers in waiting rather than recognising the real strength and assets they could be and often are to our communities. Indeed, research by Boys’ Impact found that those narratives can be incredibly pervasive in media commentary about young men’s achievements and, worse still, are believed by a significant minority of teaching staff, too, with all the impact we would then expect in terms of how comfortable young people feel in those classrooms, and their sense of belonging and willingness to engage.

We have to put this right. We need to put a strength-based relational model connecting with young men across the education system back at the heart of our work. There have been some really good examples of delivering that already, not just those already mentioned by hon. Members. It has been a real privilege to work with groups such as Football Beyond Borders and Beyond Equality to see at first hand the inspiring work they are already doing in schools across the country to demonstrate the impact that relational practice can have, giving young men space to define and talk through on their own terms what it is to be a man in Britain today, and what their aspirations for a good, progressive life could look like.

It is little wonder, seeing the incredibly moving and powerful impact that these interventions can have, that they have been held by so many school leaders, but the really important thing to note is that these interventions are scalable. Boys’ Impact has shown through its 16 hubs across the country, working with hundreds of educational leaders and organisations, that by rolling out strength-based relational approaches to working with disaffected and disadvantaged young boys, we can have really powerful impacts, improving attainment, attendance and a sense of belonging. We should consider and learn from that as part of our wider approach to curriculum reform and the schools White Paper.

It should not just be the mindset that we need to change. We also need to learn from specific interventions that can have a meaningful impact. Other Members have rightly highlighted the importance of role models. When working with disaffected young men, we know that family figures, father figures and community figures can have powerful impacts in transforming their life chances for the better. That is why we should look to learn from models like Australia’s powerful dads’ clubs, which convened dads across 250 schools in Australia to provide greater support, greater engagement in their child’s learning and activities such as read-along clubs and after-school sessions, which help support fathers to take a more active role in their child’s development, with all the powerful impacts based on the Fatherhood Institute’s work that we would expect for that young person’s attainment, achievement and sense of self.

It is important to recognise that not every young person will have a father figure available to them, but the encouraging thing is that it should not matter when it comes to establishing positive male role models. Lads Need Dads is already doing inspiring mentoring work in schools across the country to show the value of bringing in volunteers to work as peer mentors for young men, particularly with a focus on literacy. At a time when we know that reading for pleasure is far less common among young men than it is among women, and literacy is so important for underpinning so much of success in early years and beyond, those types of interventions have shown that it can be a powerful tool in driving up literacy and engagement with reading among young men, and also improving young men’s own sense of self and belonging by providing them with that important male role model as an effective peer mentor.

The Government’s wider work to encourage more male role models in early years settings and primary settings is to be encouraged. We know the gender disparity in workforces has been allowed to fly under the radar for far too long, so I am glad to see it achieving a central role in the new workforce strategy, but we need to build on that. We also need to recognise that there are a wider range of factors that can sometimes hold back boys’ success. As Richard Reeves put it, sometimes when dealing with young people, particularly at an early age, rather than seeking to address their needs we can simply see them as “malfunctioning girls”.

The Institute for the Science of Early Years rightly points out that when young people, particularly very young people, lack access to the exercise and activities they sometimes need to burn off steam as young men, it can lead to their misbehaving in ways that are too often construed as misbehaviour, rather than actually just simple failures to self-regulate. Again, there are lots of interventions in early years and primary settings that are leading the way in showing how we can address this. Greater use of outdoor active learning and daily miles have been shown in primary and earlier settings to help improve boys’ sense of belonging, behaviour and engagement. As we think further about how we can forensically break down these barriers for young boys’ achievement, I would like to make sure we consider those tools, too, as part of our work in early years and primary settings to make sure we really are setting up every young man to succeed.

I could go on for far longer than I have time for today, talking about examples of great practice. It has been inspiring to hear so many examples from colleagues in the room. There is a wealth of evidence out there. It is deeply compelling about the need to act, so we have simply no excuse not to. I hope I have left the Chamber today in no doubt about the urgency of the issue and the need to address it, but also no doubt about the fact that it is a deeply progressive cause that Labour colleagues should feel a real strength in championing. It is central to our mission to break down barriers for disadvantaged young people who would otherwise be set up to succeed, which is the underlying reason why I am a Labour politician. We have a great chance to put things right. Inspiring colleagues from across the House are looking to support us, and I look forward to working with the Minister to make sure we succeed.

British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Indeed, of the passports that I held, the British one was mine. The other one was not—I can reassure him of that. I acquired it temporarily for the purpose of this debate; I will hand it back to its rightful owner. My hon. Friend is right: we have at long last seen an end to the delay, and I will come to that shortly.

In July 2005, immediately after the non-reply that I got in June 2005, I attempted to drill down and ask about the distinction between those who had been born in the Republic and those born in Northern Ireland. The answer came from the then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office—now Mayor of Greater Manchester, no less—Mr Andy Burnham. He again indicated that the full fee had to be paid in order for someone who had been born in the Republic but moved to live in Northern Ireland in the past 60-odd years to acquire a British passport. That answer was given 20 years ago this month.

I should add at this stage that I live very close to the border—I was born there. I can walk to the Irish Republic. It is within five miles, so on a good, nice day, I can walk there in an hour or an hour and a half, depending on how quickly I walk. There are 280 crossing points along this uncloseable border, which we have debated in other contexts. The relationship between people who live in the Republic, but close to the border, and those who live in Northern Ireland is intense, because there is much that we share. Those who moved from the Republic to Northern Ireland cherish the fact that their Britishness is enshrined deeply within their family, their generations of service in the military and their loyalty to the Crown—to Her Majesty previously and His Majesty now—so they took great offence at having to go through this expensive process to get what they thought would be their right.

After July 2005, when I seemed to be getting nowhere, I succeeded in November 2005 in getting a private Member’s Bill, which ran into the ground, as most of them do. I then embarked upon a whole series of questions. I will not bore Members with them, but I asked a written parliamentary question in November 2006 and I raised the matter in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2008—from memory, Dr Murrison, you served with me on the Committee when we looked at this issue—in the Chamber in May 2008, in the Northern Ireland Assembly in June 2011, again in the House of Commons in June 2013, July 2013, March 2014, January 2015, March 2018, November 2018 and February 2019, and again in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in October 2019. We were struggling to get through the undergrowth of problems and bureaucracy in sections of the Home Office, to try to convince it that these people were entitled to a British passport.

Then we came to the 2020s. I raised the matter in September 2020, October 2022 and June 2023, and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) managed to secure a private Member’s Bill in April 2024, which brought us to where we are today. Thankfully, that got Government support and became law.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The timeline that my hon. Friend has outlined certainly highlights the number of years that he has been in this place. However, the Act must strengthen and not complicate the process. Does he agree that, currently, the practical outworking of the Act is complicating the process, particularly on the financial side?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I am just coming to. Even after my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East secured parliamentary support for his Bill, there appeared to be a delay. I raised matter again last September, and in January and May of this year. That brings us to today.

As I understand it, from next week, thankfully, we will have reached the point where people who qualify can apply to obtain a British passport, but the problem is the inequitable nature of the application.

Early Years Providers: Government Support

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for highlighting this issue and setting the scene incredibly well. Early years are the foundational building blocks for our society. I read recently about the Shaping Us campaign, led by the Princess of Wales, which strongly focuses on the need for early years support. The campaign highlights that:

“During early childhood, from pregnancy to the age of five, our brains develop at an amazing rate—faster than at any other times in our lives. Our experiences, relationships, our surroundings at that very young age, shape the rest of our lives.”

I subscribe to that not just because the Shaping Us campaign stated it, but because my youngest son Luke and his wife Rachael are staying with us with their two children—Freya is five, and her birthday was Saturday, a week ago, and Ezra is two and a half—and I can honestly say that the two of them absorb everything that happens around them like a sponge. Ezra is not able to speak yet, but he clearly understands everything said to him; we have to be careful with our language and with what we insinuate and do, because he is watching. Freya is the same.

I can absolutely understand why the years from pregnancy to the age of five are so important. Because children are by their very nature innocent, whenever we are having a bad day, they manage to cheer us up with a smile, a hug or whatever it may be. Those things mean a lot to their grandad.

The importance of the early years is well documented and accepted, and this House needs to play a greater role in supporting people to provide an environment for children that ensures that we raise a generation of happy children and highly functioning adults. That responsibility is incredibly important.

I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in his place. The Minister does not have any responsibility for Northern Ireland—he will probably say, “Thank goodness for that”—but he interacts and exchanges ideas with the Minister from the Northern Ireland Executive. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a wealth of ideas, and it is good that we can exchange them between the different regions.

Childcare costs, particularly for full-time places, have increased significantly, with some providers experiencing a 14% rise since 2021. According to Employers For Childcare, 43% of providers describe their financial situation as “struggling” or “distressed”. It is essential that parents have access not simply to people who watch their children, but to people who help their developmental progress.

In Northern Ireland, approximately 79% of women with dependent children are economically active. That is a good figure—that means that they are employed or actively seeking work. The spin-off of that, which may sometimes be negative, is that they are entrusting their children to other people, who will spend a lot of time with them. The atmosphere needs to be bright, engaging and, above all, safe. In many cases that will be provided by grandparents, family members and those who have available time.

Nurseries are having to take more children to balance the books, and they need greater support. I want to tell Westminster Hall about some of the things we are doing in Northern Ireland. Childcare is one of the most significant bills faced by many families across Northern Ireland. My party, the Democratic Unionist party, saw that—not that we are better than anybody else, by the way—and our Minister acted on it, so some credit can be given to our Minister for doing so. We instigated a survey of 1,000 parents, which found that nearly 85% of people had their return to work impacted by childcare costs. In other words, people go back to work early because they need the money, or they can put it off a bit longer if granny and granda, uncles and aunts, or other family members will help out.

Almost a quarter of parents also say that childcare costs consumed nearly a full wage in the household. Those figures are incredibly scary. The most recent Employers For Childcare survey highlighted an average cost of some £170 a week, which represents a significant financial hurdle, yet Northern Ireland lagged behind other UK regions in supporting working families, so we decided to do something. The DUP was determined to change this situation, and subsequently brought in the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme in September 2024—it will be a year old come this September. It provides a 15% subsidy for childcare costs to support working parents with children who have not yet started primary school. The NICSS is a really good scheme, not because it was introduced by our party, but because it helps everybody, irrespective of whether they vote DUP in Northern Ireland. That is what politics is about: delivering for all, irrespective of whether people vote for us on the ballot paper.

The childcare is delivered by registered childcare providers participating in the tax-free childcare scheme, or TFC scheme, including daycare providers, playgroups, childminders and approved home child carers. The overarching aim of the scheme is to help working parents with the affordability of childcare costs. The Northern Ireland Executive has agreed that the subsidy scheme will target working parents who are eligible for the tax-free childcare and who have children who have not yet started primary school. It is really important that we have that scheme in place.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with regard to the interventions that have been made. However, returning to SEND growth, in Northern Ireland it is outpacing the growth of the general school population, and I believe that late identification of SEND and delayed support for it is one of the biggest failures right across the United Kingdom. So often, children are not identified as having SEND until they reach school age, by which point their language, social skills and cognitive delays are often entrenched. Therefore, does he agree that there needs to be more investment into funding specialist training for pre-school educators, because often early years is the poor cousin of the education system, despite the fact that, as we have already heard, zero to five is the most important time in a child’s life?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and the words of a mother and the words on behalf of her constituents are well documented; we thank her for that. She has outlined the issues very clearly.

The tax-free childcare scheme will be extended from 1 September 2025 to include provision for school-age children for families registered with the scheme. There is a lot more to do, but that means that from 1 September 2025 working parents of school-age children will be able to receive the 15% subsidy. The scheme started a year ago by focusing on a limited number of children, but it has done more since. This year, the subsidy will embrace even more people, up to the capped amount on their childcare bills.

To assist with the early years development of their children, parents need to have reliable and affordable childcare. I believe that this House needs to look at providing such childcare for working families, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to. As I said earlier, I know that the Minister has regular contact with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the relevant Northern Ireland Minister in particular. I would just be interested to know what ideas have been swapped and how we can do things better together. I know that he will see the benefits of the Democratic Unionist party scheme, for instance, and hopefully there can be funding for more schemes that offer such practical help across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There is nothing more important than looking after our children. As a grandfather of six, I understand the importance of schooling, as the ages of my grandchildren vary from two and a half right up to 16 and they are going through the system. I can see the improvement that we have made in Northern Ireland. I believe that improvement can be made elsewhere, and I know that this House and the Minister in particular will do their best to make sure that they deliver the best for all children across this great United Kingdom.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

I have sort of already answered my hon. Friend’s question. We will ensure that we look at the matter straightaway and that the roll-out takes place straightaway.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her clarity. She will know only too well the distress that this has caused to many children and young adults, particularly those from vulnerable households and families. Will she confirm that Northern Ireland kinship children and adoptees who have been adopted to England will benefit from the fund? Will she also clarify whether any ongoing conversations about best practice and learning on the issue are being shared with the Northern Ireland Executive?

[Janet Daby]

Good practice is always being shared across our devolved nations. On the other point that the hon. Lady mentions, I will endeavour to get back to her.

Relationship Education in Schools

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this debate forward, although she and I will differ on some of the gender ideology.

I believe that when the Government introduce the RSHE regulations they need to be Cass-compliant. Dr Hilary Cass pointed out in her review that the importance of what happens in schools cannot be overestimated. Some schools have been guilty of engaging in the potentially dangerous process of socially transitioning children. They go along with the child’s wish to identify as a sex other than their birth sex. I encourage the Government, when introducing the regulations, to take up the helpful recommendation that schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity. Above all, they should take on board parental input and also school ethos; schools with a Christian ethos should be able to uphold that ethos when teaching relationship education.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Lady and all Members for their co-operation. We now move on to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

School Attendance

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Vicky Ford]

I think that the important message to get to children and their families is that the best place for most children to be is in school. That is best for their education. It is best for their friendships. It is best for their development. It is best for their learning in other extracurricular activities. There is also a separate issue of home education, which I will get to shortly.

Under my Bill, which makes the guidance mandatory, schools will be expected to have an attendance champion, to have robust day-to-day processes for recording, monitoring and following up absences, to use their attendance data to prioritise the pupils and cohorts on which to focus their efforts, and to work jointly with their local authorities and other agencies where the causes of persistent and severe absence go beyond a school’s remit.

The Local Government Association, for which I have great respect, has written to me in advance of the debate, saying that there is urgent need for a cross-government, child-centred strategy to tackle rising disadvantage and the wider factors that contribute towards persistent-absence children missing out on school. It says that that must include reforming the SEND system, expanding access to mental health support and youth services, connecting with hard-to-reach communities and ensuring that schools are resourced, supported and incentivised. The LGA also supports the introduction of a register of children who are out of school due to elective home education. That would improve the data on the visibility of these children so that councils can verify that children are receiving a suitable education in a safe environment.

A register of children who are out of school due to elective home education is not part of my Bill, but it is part of a Bill tabled before Christmas by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), who is a former Ofsted inspector and just spoke in the debate in the main Chamber. I know that Government Ministers are assisting her with the Bill; it is on the Order Paper and has been since December. It does not need to be overtaken by an Opposition day debate to table yet another Bill, because that would be confusing. We have two Bills, they are going through the House, and they are already on the Order Paper.

The Centre for Mental Health and the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition have written to me to point out the link between mental health and absence from school that I have mentioned. They recommend that a mental health absence code is introduced. The issue of different absence codes was also raised by the Education Committee. It is not specifically addressed by my Bill, but the Minister may wish to comment on it. In their letter, they welcomed the “laudable progress” being made in rolling out mental health support teams to many thousands of schools. They would like its funding to be guaranteed and an assurance that all schools will have access to these teams. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that in his answers to the debate.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Having been born and brought up in her early years in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member will know of the excellent educational facilities and teaching in that part of the United Kingdom. She makes a valid point about mental health. She will know that one in eight young people in Northern Ireland experience anxiety, which is 25% higher than in the rest of the UK. Does she agree that there needs to be a focus across the United Kingdom on mental health because it is contributing to children’s absence from school?

[Vicky Ford]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments. I remember my time in education in Northern Ireland very fondly. I was lucky to have access to a brilliant education in both state and private schools and to benefit from scholarships. I have excellent schools in my Chelmsford constituency. I commend the Government for the increase in recent years in the number of good and outstanding schools across the country.

On mental health, the Schools Minister has just explained in the main Chamber how the mental health support teams have been rolled out already to thousands of schools, and that they are working with the NHS to see that rolled out more widely. That is already in progress, and I have asked the Minister to address more of that roll-out. I know that it makes a difference, and it was a major ask from the coalitions of mental health experts who wrote to me. There is also, often, bespoke local need, such as that addressed by the amazing Kids Inspire charity in Essex, based in my constituency of Chelmsford, which does wonderful work. Part of it is funded by the voluntary sector, and part of it is state funded through grants. It does fantastic work with children who have been at risk of trauma.

I say to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) that it breaks my heart that Stormont is not sitting. If it were, Northern Ireland would be able to make its own decisions to address the particular mental health and other health needs there.

I thank the Centre for Social Justice for all its research on the subject, and the Children’s Commissioner and her team for their research and advice. As well as listening to the views of colleagues today, I have been working with the Children’s Commissioner, who is helping me to host a major roundtable next week so that I can hear the views of schools, social workers, parents and other expert groups directly. That will happen before my Bill has its Second Reading on Friday 2 February. I hope that the Bill will receive cross-party support from all Members in the Chamber and that they will ensure the same from other Members of their parties, which will enable it to pass swiftly through Second Reading and into Committee. Through that, we can make the guidance mandatory so that every school, local authority and body follow best practice. It is a positive legal step that we can take to enable children to get the support they need and help them return to school.

Autism and Learning Disability Training

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. There will not be a single Member of Parliament who has not had some issues with local CAMHS, sadly. Of course, early intervention and recognition is key to this and can stave off many problems that come further down the line. I would not be doing teachers or pupils justice if I did not refer to wider issues surrounding SEND provision and support for autistic children more broadly. We know that there are simply not enough specialist SEND school places or trained professionals to cope with the increased need.

Schools are required under the Equality Act 2010 to make adjustments, but there is only so much they can do with current provision. As we have heard, it takes an inordinate amount of time to secure an EHCP and then for the associated funding to filter through to the educational establishment concerned. Meanwhile, schools are left to pick up the tab and in many cases to pick up the pieces involved in offering incredibly intensive support to children with very complex needs.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate, which is very fitting and certainly much needed in relation to our schools. Does she agree that this issue is not only important in primary and post-primary education but in nursery and playgroup settings, where it is absolutely vital, because ultimately children affected by these issues need support measures in place as soon as they reach primary school? Nursery and pre-school provision is where the core of this work needs to sit.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady must be Mystic Meg. I say that because that issue is exactly what I will come on to next.

Early years settings are a crucial place to start this work; the hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. Early diagnosis and putting in place the building blocks of support from the outset can have a lifelong impact on a child’s attitude to education settings, and on their interaction and support from those settings; in fact, it can have a lifelong impact on their wellbeing.

If all education and care staff, particularly in early years settings, successfully underwent the right training, children who require extra support and assistance would be identified sooner, which would prevent some of the issues that we have heard about from developing. We heard from a teacher called Helen, who said that during her time in teacher training, which took four years, half a day was spent covering special educational needs. Such training leaves teachers ill-equipped to support a growing percentage of pupils in their classes.

I am sure that the Minister will tell me about the training that is provided. I expect that he will also tell me that the Government have published their strategy on special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision improvement—not that I am trying to interpret his speech for him—and about all the increased investment in SEND, which is over £10.5 billion by 2024-25, and the universal services programme, which will receive £12 million in funding, and that £1.4 million is available for the strategic priorities grant to support students at risk of discontinuing higher education studies. Those numbers have very little meaning to those caught in the cyclone of the system if they do not filter through to create meaningful improvements on the ground. I will therefore set out what I would like to know from the brilliant Minister.

What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the full picture of both learning disability training and autism training for education professionals? What level of understanding does he have about training—not only the quantity of training, but the quality of training? What conversations has he had with some of the excellent charities in this space and with the teachers, parents and children who actually live these things and therefore are experts by experience? To what level can he confidently tell me that all education professionals have the confidence to teach neurodivergent children and children with learning disabilities, so that their needs are met and their potential is realised? To what extent is the experience of students and their carers taken into consideration?

Mr Vickers, you have already heard about what I am about to say next. During my time as Minister of State for care, in the Department of Health and Social Care, I started work on introducing the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for all health and social care staff. That became law in the Health and Care Act 2022, and it is now the Government’s preferred and recommended training for health and social care staff.

The training is named after Oliver McGowan. Oliver was a remarkable young man whose tragic and completely avoidable death, at the age of just 17, shone a light on the need for health and social care staff to have better skills, better knowledge and better understanding of the needs of autistic people. It came about because of a meeting I had with Paula McGowan, Oliver’s incredible mum, who courageously shared her family’s unimaginable experiences with me and who has been a relentless advocate for the change that needed to happen. It is an honour to have Paula here today after she travelled all the way from Australia just to attend this debate.

Since November 2022, when the initial roll-out of the Oliver McGowan training began, over 1 million people have completed the first part. The training has received significant international interest in Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, and as a result it has been made available on an e-learning platform. The initial feedback is incredibly exciting and shows a significant increase in participants’ knowledge, confidence and skill, with 88% of participants saying that they felt confident they could communicate with people with a learning disability and with autistic people, and with 84% of participants saying they felt more confident in their work.

The most significant thing about the training is that it is co-delivered with trainers who are autistic or learning disabled, and they are paid for their time. They are experts by experience and are able to give health and care professionals first-hand insight into how to listen, how to act and how to get this right.

Childcare: Affordability and Availability

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate. It has been an informative and timely debate that really ticks the boxes of many of our constituents, who want to see real change on this issue. As an active constituency MP, probably one of the issues on which working families lobby me the most is the cost of childcare and how prohibitive it makes it to get back into work, particularly for mums who have just had their baby.

I suppose my mantra for this debate would be that work must always pay. It is important that the Government make it pay for those who want to get back into or continue in the world of work following the birth of a child, yet across the UK people are opting out of work because it does not pay to work. Their monthly childcare bill cancels out their net pay or leaves them with an amount that makes it not really worth the effort to work.

I want to mention a couple of Northern Ireland specifics. In 2021, the average cost of a full-time childcare place was £170 per week, while it was £186 per week for a day nursery and £166 per week for a childminder. Day nursery costs as high as £245 per week were recorded, with a range of childminders costing up to £300 per week. However, the median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £575. The Minister will be able to do the maths: for an average family with two kids, what is left is not enough to provide even a basic standard of living for a family.

We all know that the situation has got worse and been made more difficult in the past 18 months because of inflation. Indeed, providers themselves are feeling the pressure because of the increased costs that are in some instances leaving their businesses unviable. The situation is not helped by the bureaucracy and red tape they face on a daily basis.

The figures I have cited come from a local charity that operates in Northern Ireland called Employers For Childcare, which does an immense amount of work lobbying on childcare and supporting us politicians with data to prove that dealing with this issue will help the long-term economics of the country.

The most recent Employers For Childcare report, from 2021, cited some personal examples that speak even more powerfully than the figures. Let me read a couple of short quotes:

“Both my husband and I work full time. My husband is on minimum wage and so his entire wage goes on childcare. It is unaffordable when you have no alternative support. I have sleepless nights worrying about the cost of childcare. It is soul destroying.”

Another respondent said:

“Childcare needs to be more affordable. I’m in a reasonably paid part-time job but I couldn’t afford to go full-time as 90% of my wage would go on child-care costs which is pointless. One parent (usually the mother) of most families has to work part-time as they can’t afford full-time childcare.”

Those testimonies raise serious questions, including about alternative support. Throughout the debate, hon. Members have mentioned the importance of grandparents taking up the mantle in the home and having to step in, as my own grandparents did on many occasions, yet they do not receive a benefit for that. My ask of the Government is to support grandparents in that role, so that they can provide that wraparound service for working parents. Grandparents Plus has some superb ideas about helping grandparents in that way.

In many cases, it is the female in the family unit who sacrifices her career progression to stay at home in order to reduce childcare costs. Is that fair? No, it is not, and it comes back to the key point that work must pay. As we search for equality of opportunity in the workplace, that issue must be addressed.

The Government say they are on the side of working families. The forthcoming Budget offers the Chancellor an opportunity to demonstrate that, and I call on him to increase the tax-free childcare allowance. That would not only make a significant difference to the household finances of families across the United Kingdom, but encourage more people back into the workforce. That would be particularly beneficial to our public services, such as schools and hospitals, where it is simply not affordable for a parent to work. It would be making work pay—and we know that the money is there to do it.

I will finish by saying that our childcare providers are superb. As I stand here today, my son is being looked after by his childminder—she is an absolute star. I am so thankful for the support childcare providers give us as working parents. It is time to make childcare work for working families, and actually make work pay.

Religious Education in Modern Britain

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to debate this important subject under your beady eye, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on securing the debate.

Quality religious education is an important part of a knowledge-rich curriculum. It ensures that all pupils understand the value and traditions of Britain and other countries, and helps to foster an understanding among different faiths and cultures in our modern, diverse nation. In his powerful speech, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) rightly said that a proper understanding of politics and culture requires a deep knowledge of the world’s great religions. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, who cited common phrases such as “the writing is on the wall”, “the salt of the earth” and—perhaps pertinently to this place—“how the mighty have fallen”, all of which come from the Bible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) demonstrated how important academic knowledge of religion is to an understanding of many of the great events and conflicts around the world. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), citing two teachers from his school days—which were probably a few decades ago—reminded us of the important role that teachers play in our lives. They ensure that we have the knowledge—in his example, of Irish history and of other world religions—that we need to understand the world.

RE is an important part of a modern school curriculum that aims to promote the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children and young people and to help them to prepare for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life. It is important that pupils know about the world’s key religions. We need to develop students’ knowledge and understanding of religious beliefs, of the teachings and sources of those beliefs, and of the key religious texts and scriptures of all the world’s major religions.

Knowledge of world religions is also valuable in supporting Britain’s relationships with other countries. It is clearly important to understand the values and perspectives of those with whom we wish to conduct business or build diplomatic relationships. It is because of the importance of the subject that it remains compulsory that all pupils at maintained state-funded schools in England—including, through their funding agreements, academies—study religious education up to the age of 18.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes will be aware of statistics that indicate that 64% of the UK adult population think that an education in religion and world views is an important part of the school curriculum, and that 71% agree that the subject should reflect the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs in the UK today. We require schools to publish on their websites details of their curricula, including RE. We want parents to have a clear understanding of what their child will be taught and to be able to talk to the school if they have any questions or concerns.

The support for RE shown by Members in this debate is reflected in the continuing popularity of the religious studies GCSE, to which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), referred. Provisional 2022 figures show that 34.3% of pupils at the end of key stage 4—some 221,000 of them—took the GCSE in religious studies. It has more entries than each of art and design, computing, business studies and PE. In 2010-11, the figure was 195,109, but that was of course for the full-course GCSE. At that time, there was also the short-course GCSE. The 2010-11 figure amounted to 31% of the cohort. In 2016-17, the figure was higher than it is today, with 264,000 pupils—some 45% of the cohort—taking the GCSE.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) raised the issue of the EBacc, as he is wont to do. As he will know, we deliberately kept the EBacc small enough to enable pupils to study other subjects, such as music, art, RE or vocational subjects. Our overriding concern when we introduced the EBacc was that the core academic subjects it represents—English, maths, science, languages, and history or geography—were being denied to too many pupils, especially the more disadvantaged. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his period in office as Minister for School Standards. I know he is committed to raising academic standards in schools. He did so during his period in office and will continue to do so in the other roles he plays, in which I wish him well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes referred to a decline in the time spent teaching RE. While figures will vary from school to school, at a national level the proportion of time secondary schools spend teaching RE has remained broadly stable: it made up 3.2% of all teaching hours in 2010 and 3.3% in 2021.

The hon. Member for Strangford raised the issue of the right to withdraw from RE. Although our view is that RE is an important subject, we think it is equally important that parents and older students have a right to withdrawal. We currently have no plans to change the situation.

In respect of a school’s RE curriculum, except for subject content specifications for the religious studies GCSE and A-level, the Government do not prescribe curriculum content, how RE should be delivered or how many hours should be taught.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland we recently had an outrageous court judgment that declared that exclusively Christian RE lessons in primary schools are unlawful. In my mind, this ruling reveals the real agenda of so many: the removal of Christianity from school settings. In this broken land and society, we are seeing the breakdown of the family unit and soaring rates of suicide, born out of hopelessness. Surely the teaching of love, hope and charity within Christianity is what society needs more of, not less of?

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Member makes an important point—those are common features of the world’s major religions—but obviously RE and education is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland.

RE is part of each school’s basic or wider curriculum. While academies, free schools and most maintained schools designated as having a religious character may design and follow their own RE curriculum, all other maintained schools must follow their area’s locally agreed syllabus for RE. The locally agreed syllabus specifies details of the RE curriculum that they should deliver and is monitored by the standing advisory council on religious education that is established by each local authority.

I understand the concern raised by several Members that some schools may not be taking their duty to teach RE seriously. I should be clear that all mainstream, state-funded schools are required to teach RE. Schools that are not teaching RE are acting unlawfully or are in breach of their funding agreement. Any concerns that a school may not be complying with the requirement to teach RE should in the first instance be raised via the school’s complaints procedure. If a complaint is not resolved, the issue can be escalated via the Department for Education’s school complaints unit.

Members have cited the figure that one in five schools are not teaching RE—I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made that point. Actually, the Department does not collect data on schools’ level of compliance with the requirement to teach RE, but it does collect data on the hours of RE teaching by teachers. The data cited by my right hon. Friend is drawn from individual schools’ timetabling systems, so it does not really represent a completely accurate picture. For example, it may not pick up instances when RE is taught as part of another subject or under a different title.