Student Loans

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is spot on. It is not well known that apprenticeship degrees are more oversubscribed than Oxford and Cambridge. These are things that young people want to do, and that is why we are trying to expand them. Instead of celebrating the expansion of low-value degrees, the Government should ask whether it is right to continue pushing young people down a path that leaves them with debt but no clear prospects.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call John Slinger. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]

--- Later in debate ---

[Helena Dollimore]

The Opposition talk about amnesia. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is they who have collective amnesia about the system they created? My generation certainly do not have amnesia about the debt repayments we made when Liz Truss crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring—that is what the Conservatives presided over. We do not have collective amnesia about them abolishing maintenance grants for the lowest income students. It is this Government who are acting for my generation with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I just remind Members that interventions need to be shorter than that.

[Georgia Gould]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I thank the hon. Member for that comment, and that is why we are supporting maintenance grants to help students with the cost of living.

I will conclude by saying that our approach to further reform of the system will be deliberate, evidenced and fiscally responsible. We are here not to tear down the house, but to repair the roof that was left to leak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Sollom]

The point is to allow the market and the regulation of that market to decide. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. To be helpful, the hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the microphone is in front of him; it makes it much harder for Hansard and for the viewing public to pick up his words if he faces the back of the Chamber.

[Ian Sollom]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will turn to the threshold and the interest rate—areas on which we do substantially agree with the Conservative motion’s diagnosis, if not its proposed remedy. In the system as it stands, the interest rate matters financially only for those who repay in full, which most graduates do not. That is by design to share the costs between the graduate and the state. It means that the largest benefit of the Conservatives’ proposal would flow to the highest earners—those who repay completely. As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, it would be regressive in its distribution, which is why more thought is required on interest structure.

On the threshold, the picture is more straightforward. Before the election, the Education Secretary promised that graduates would pay less under Labour, as the shadow Minister said, and, in their first Budget, the Government left the threshold rising. Then, in their second Budget, the Government froze the threshold for three years from 2027.

Ministers have cited a £5.9 billion figure as the yield of this change, but we should be clear about what that figure is: it is the discounted present value of extra repayments across nearly 30 years, with the bulk sitting in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s. The annual cash impact during this Parliament is relatively small, and the change barely moves the needle on the Chancellor’s own fiscal rules. Graduates will bear a real and immediate burden in their payslip for the remainder of their loan for a cash-flow improvement that is modest in this Parliament and does nothing at all for the Chancellor’s balanced Budget rule. Of all the choices in November’s Budget, why did they make this one?

I note that the Government’s amendment today welcomes a commitment to making the system fairer, and such commitments should be welcomed. However, graduates are waiting for action. Let me therefore set out what the Liberal Democrats would do. First, we would unfreeze the plan 2 threshold immediately and tie it to earnings, as was originally promised. Secondly, we would restore meaningful maintenance grants. Students from the poorest families can borrow £1,284 less today in real terms than in 2020-21. The £1,000 grant reaches about 10% of students, restricted to specific subjects. I think we can do better on maintenance policy: grants must be available regardless of subject, and the parental income thresholds that have been frozen since 2008 must be urgently uprated.

Thirdly, we would establish a royal commission on graduate finance, including plans 2, 3 and 5—plans 3 and 5 have terms that are, in several respects, even harsher. All those plans should be in scope. It should also have independent oversight of key parameters. That is not to delay, but to look seriously at fairer interest structures, total repayment caps and progressive repayment rates, and, critically, to build the cross-party settlement that is the only real protection against the next Government squeezing graduates again.

The system has been treated as a fiscal convenience rather than a social contract by the previous Government, and now by this one. Graduates deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There will be an immediate five-minute time limit.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lola McEvoy]

I am interested in the idea of licensing functionalities and new developments before they come into children’s lives, which is not happening at the moment—at the moment it is happening after they have been used for a long time. We are age-analysing and risk-assessing them retrospectively, which seems very backwards to me.

I agree that we should have a licensing scheme for content that is designed for children, like CoComelon and some of the other content that we know is addictive for very young children. Such a scheme would obviously have to be fleshed out, with a proper consultation on publishing rights and with information on who is going to do the licensing. I feel very strongly that self-published is inappropriate for under-16s. I do not think that content that is not regulated, that has not gone through any supervision and that has no legislative or regulatory framework surrounding it should be allowed to be fed to our children in any way.

I will sum up by saying that one of the young people in my latest online safety forum said to me via an anonymous note—I told them all that they could send me an anonymous note if there was anything they did not want to say in front of their peers— “Don’t ban it, but if you do, make sure it works.” I thought that was brilliant. Young people are much savvier than we give them credit for.

I want to make it very clear that at the moment, Ofcom is yet to use its strongest powers. The Online Safety Act does not include AI. I am determined that whatever this Government decide to do, they must do it with the idea of effective implementation of the legislation. We owe it to the next generation and the generation currently using the digital world to get it right and to future-proof their right to a childhood. Because so many of them have been badly let down, we must make evergreen—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Kirsty Blackman.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Only one clause in this legislation applied to Scotland in advance of it returning from the Lords. Lords amendment 38 contains a reserved power that would apply across the whole UK the changes that are being suggested to the Online Safety Act. I want to focus specifically on those changes.

Comments have been made about social media, but it is not exclusively social media where there are dangers to children online. It is not exclusively user-to-user services where there are dangers to children online. There are some games that can be downloaded that do not have user-to-user services but are highly addictive, and those would not be covered by the Conservative or Liberal Dem proposals because they are games without user-to-user services.

There are massive risks online for young people, but I do not want us to absolve companies of the responsibility of dealing with that. There is this sudden feeling that dealing with this issue is dramatically urgent, but people have been sending unsolicited nude pics online for more than 30 years. It has been happening for a significant length of time. It is urgent that action is taken, but it does not have to be taken today; it has to be taken correctly and in a way that works, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) just said.

We need to ensure that, whatever we do, we have a clear aim in mind. What is the intention? Are we trying to protect children online, or are we trying to ban children from social media? Are we trying to ensure that young people are not exposed to people who are looking to groom them, to access them, or to convince them of something? Are we trying to protect them from that, or from obsessively looking at algorithms and videos on TikTok? Maybe we are trying to do both, but we need to be clear about what the aims are.

There is no point in banning social media if we do not know why we are banning it, and if we still allow access to Roblox and many other places where there is harm. If we ban YouTube, what happens if a kid wanders into a room and watches YouTube that is playing on the TV via the PlayStation? Who is responsible for that? How do we sort this—how do we ensure that it works?

I am clear that whatever happens, it needs to work. We must not just listen to the big tech companies. We need to do as the Minister has suggested: listen to parents and experts to understand exactly how children consume the internet. We need to know where and how these individuals who are accessing children for nefarious purposes are doing it, because it is not only through social media or the platforms that are being defined by some people as social media.

I am clear that this needs to work. Therefore, I am supportive of the Government undertaking a consultation. I have spoken to DSIT officials and as many people as I possibly can about this. I am very glad about some of the changes that the Government are bringing forward—for example, to ensure that livestreaming cannot be accessed by young people. I have been pushing for that for a significant number of years, and I am glad that we have got to that place, but there are far wider issues with certain functionalities online that need to be tackled and that will not be covered by a blanket ban on social media.

We cannot let the companies continue to get away with this. We cannot let them continue to have horrific and harmful illegal content, without cracking down on it and making sure that they are held accountable for the behaviour on their platforms. We cannot just say, “We’ll ban under-16s from social media and absolve ourselves and the companies of responsibility.” We need to take real action that will really protect our children. Please, everyone, respond to the consultation.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 105. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on allergy, a lifelong allergy sufferer, a former teacher and the parent of a lifelong allergy sufferer, I am painfully aware of the inconsistencies of allergy care, and the anxiety and harm that it causes.

Baroness Morgan of Cotes’ amendment aimed to introduce new requirements based on learning, following the tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and others. While I believe that there is much more that can be done to improve the lives of allergy sufferers, I am pleased that the creation of new statutory advice and the implementation of Benedict’s law will vastly improve the situation for children with allergies. All schools will now be required to stock allergy devices, have a dedicated allergy policy and ensure that teachers are trained, meaning that lifesaving treatments for allergies will no longer be hidden in tupperware boxes at the back of dusty cupboards. It means that no parents will ever receive a phone call like I did, when I was asked whether my child, in the school’s care, needed to use their auto-injector, knowing full well that if the answer was yes, it could have already been too late.

I am proud that the Government are putting allergies at the heart of proactive, preventive school planning. Recent approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency means that more adrenalin devices are available, including stable, long-lasting and less-traumatic adrenalin nasal sprays. I would appreciate it if the Minister can confirm that nasal sprays and other adrenalin devices will be available in schools following the new statutory advice. Children are more likely to have a reaction in school than anywhere else: 80% of food allergy reactions happen in schools, including a quarter for the first time. That is why it is essential that schools have devices available, even before diagnosis occurs.

I want to celebrate the campaigning of Baroness Morgan of Cotes and the incredible work of Helen Blythe. The implementation of Benedict’s law in full will reduce the risk to our children. It will ensure that every child starts the school day safe, and will reduce the fear that they will not leave it that way, even if they have allergies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Rebecca Paul, who has just two minutes.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I am incredibly pleased to speak in support of Lords amendment 38, which seeks to raise the digital age of consent to 16. I only wish we had much more time for this debate, as it deserves.

For years, parents like me have worried about the harms of social media on our children, and the detrimental impact of excessive screentime. We have tried to manage it as best we can on our own. We have felt the sting when we have been told by others that responsibility fully sits with parents, and that good parents do not need the state to help them get this right, yet no one says that about alcohol, smoking or buying fireworks. In all those cases, it is acceptable for parents to be helped by sensible laws put in place to protect children from preventable harm, yet social media and excessive screentime are just as harmful as cigarettes, alcopops and messing around with fireworks in the street, so why would the state not step in on that too?

I have three children, and it is fair to say that they love screentime. If I try to talk to them when they are glued to a YouTube video of someone else playing a computer game, they ignore me, completely engrossed. They do not want to go out in the garden, play with their friends in the street or play with toys. Instead, if given a choice, they would always choose to stare zombie-like at their tablet. Thankfully, I have kept them away from social media, but there is only so long I can get away with that.

Staring at a screen for endless hours is not healthy. It prevents children from developing the social and cognitive skills they need in adulthood and is terrible for their mental health. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a mental health crisis, which started at the same time as the mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. It really should be a wake-up call. What does the future look like if our children’s most important relationship is with their phone? Their brains are literally becoming hardwired to respond to likes and shares, rather than human interaction and connection.

Social media is doing exactly what it was designed to do: reeling our children in and feeding them content that often is not in their best interest but is highly addictive. We know this because we all experience it the same. Social media is not for children. We do not need any more time given over to consultation to confirm what we already know—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call the Minister to wind up.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable contributions. We have heard a number of powerful speeches that made really important points. I am very sorry that I do not have enough time to respond in detail, but I will endeavour to write to Members who asked specific questions.

This is a Bill with opportunity at its heart—opportunity for every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into. It will make children safer online and offline, with our ambitious, swift action on social media and phones; it will help to tackle the cost of living crisis with our action on free school meals and the cost of uniforms; and it will drive up standards in our schools and improve outcomes for children in care.

Tonight, the House has the opportunity to support free school meals for half a million more children, swift action to protect our children online, and the most significant safeguarding measures in a generation. This is a landmark Bill, but it is also a Labour Bill—because it is ambitious for every single child in this country. I urge the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and for our country’s future.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.

SEND Provision: Local Authorities

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

That is such a critical point, and we have heard too many stories about long travel times, and how having to be in transport provokes stress for children, which holds them back. We are determined that every community has access to that support, whether that is inclusive schools or a range of specialist places. That is why we have put £3.7 billion into creating those specialist places around the country, and it is also why we are working on specialist provision packages to ensure that each area has that range of provision. We are determined to build up local provision so that children can grow up close to their friends. I have spoken to young people who have been in the position that my hon. Friend describes. They come back to their communities at 18, and they do not have support networks or friends, and it is so hard to build a life. That has to change, and we are determined to do so.

We have set out our plans after more than a year of engagement, but we want to hear from the constituents of all the Members here and beyond. I am personally committed to travelling and speaking to different voices around the country. We have heard from all the different contexts how things work in rural communities and different parts of the country. It is critical that we get it right. This is a generational opportunity to make change for families who have been let down. I am determined that this will be a full and an open consultation. I ask everyone who is here today, and everyone who is listening, to help us to spread the word so that we hear the families’ voices. Having heard these stories, I feel very deeply—as, I am sure, does the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley—the responsibility to change things for those families, and I am committed to working with Members on both sides of the House to get this right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

It be remiss of me not to extend an invitation to the Minister to visit St Edward’s school in my constituency of Romsey and Southampton North.

Question put and agreed to.

Education Funding: Distribution

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings]

I have some key questions for the Minister about exactly that point.

A stark reality keeps county councillors and their finance officers awake at night. Cambridgeshire’s overall dedicated schools grant deficit stood at £62.8 million at the end of 2025. Forecasts show that the high needs block deficit will rise to about £94 million by March 2026, and potentially to £200 million by April 2028. The council is now paying about £3 million a year to service the interest on the debt, which places the county in severe financial risk. I raised this question with Minister McGovern when we had a meeting about the local government financial settlement—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We must not refer to right hon. and hon. Members by name. Although the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern) was the Minister in post, we would still not refer to her by name.

[Pippa Heylings]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Everyone now needs to know what will happen to the debt in 2028 when the Government centralise the funding, as they have announced that they will. If it is not absorbed or absolved by the Government, Cambridgeshire, like many other councils, could be approaching section 114 bankruptcy territory. That is what is keeping its councillors awake at night.

SEND Provision: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I hear the heartbreaking stories from Barking and Dagenham about the huge demand for SEND provision and the difficulty in meeting it. In Surrey, we have similarly heartbreaking cases of children with autism who cannot move out of mainstream school because the capacity is not there. As a result, one of my constituents is getting bullied terribly and the council has refused to fund his place in a specialist school. But that story is not unique in Surrey or in Barking and Dagenham. Despite that, the county council leader, Tim Oliver, claimed that the vast majority of SEND families in Surrey are happy with their support. That is despite the council suppressing a survey of 1,000 parents for six months—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is far too long. As the Adjournment started before 10 o’clock, he will of course be free to make a speech.

[Margaret Mullane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. That is happening against a backdrop of 14 years with no investment for councils and they are really struggling.

On behalf of the local authority, I urge the Department for Education to invest more in the development of truly inclusive schools, well-funded and resourced, so that Barking and Dagenham can increase the provision of SEND support in a mainstream setting. If the local authority could ensure a high standard of support through on-site additionally resourced provision and other mainstream settings, that would reassure the parents of children with SEND that their child’s educational needs will be met without reliance on an EHCP. I think that would help to significantly reduce stress and anxiety, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, for thousands of people in our borough.

Having spoken to many parents of children with SEND across my constituency, I know that they have to fight for everything and that in most cases they get little to no support at present without an EHCP in place. The system is too convoluted, and it does not work for parents, children or local authorities. More needs to be done to streamline the assessment process, so that parents are not jumping through hoops for months on end, and that the best possible care and educational support can be delivered without the constant battle that parents currently face.

When considering the provision of services in Barking and Dagenham, we must also take account of the level of deprivation and the impact that has on the level of need. Barking and Dagenham has the 21st highest deprivation score of the 317 local authorities in England, with 62% of households in the borough having at least one measure of deprivation as measured on the index of multiple deprivation. Furthermore, 46% of children in Barking and Dagenham are estimated to live in poverty, which is the third highest across England and Wales.

Deprivation on such a scale means that we have some of the poorest health outcomes in London, and 30% of all households in the borough are home to a resident with some form of disability that requires a support service. The council is trying really hard to find innovative means to support the growing demand for services in the face of mounting financial pressure, but it simply does not have the resources to establish long-term stability in that respect.

Barking and Dagenham has one of the highest proportions of additional resourced provision in the country, with almost a third of schools in the borough hosting an ARP.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North, I am proud to speak in support of the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, which is a sensible and necessary reform to support our struggling hospitality sector and, as we have heard, allow communities to come together during moments of national significance. The Bill gives the Government the power to extend licensing hours across the country for key events, such as royal celebrations, national sporting victories and commemorative days, without the need for venues to go through costly and time-consuming individual applications.

For Portsmouth North, this is more than just a technical measure—it is a lifeline. Across areas such as North End, Drayton, Cosham and Hilsea, we have seen much-loved venues close their doors in recent years, yet some still stand strong at the heart of our communities. Pubs such as the Harvest Home in Copnor, the George in Cosham, the Drayton Tavern in Drayton and the Cross Keys in Paulsgrove, where my mum and dad met, have fought to keep going, despite increased pressures from rising costs, staff shortages and regulatory burdens. For many of these venues, the opportunity to stay open later during special events without additional red tape could mean the difference between a profitable night and another loss.

I want to highlight the role of Casemates Studios in Hilsea. Although primarily a creative space, it supports a range of community events, music gigs and social gatherings. More flexible licensing arrangements will allow places like Casemates to better host local talent and public events tied to national occasions, without the financial or bureaucratic strain that often puts them off even trying. This Bill supports exactly that kind of local, community-led vibrancy. Having spoken with business owners across my constituency, I know how hard they have worked to stay afloat. The Licensing Hours Extensions Bill removes an unnecessary hurdle. It simplifies the process, reduces costs, and gives our hospitality businesses a fair shot at success when it matters most—on those big nights when our country is celebrating.

Let me be clear: this is not about handing out licences indiscriminately. The Bill rightly ensures that local authorities and the police are consulted before any national extension is granted, meaning that residents will still be protected from antisocial behaviour and decisions will reflect the needs of the whole community.

Portsmouth North’s pubs and venues are not just businesses—they are places where people gather, celebrate, mark milestones and find connections. This Bill gives them a boost at a time when many are struggling to keep the lights on. I am pleased to support the Bill, and urge colleagues across the House to do the same for the sake of our local economies, our community spirit and the future of our British pub. As our Lionesses begin their Euros campaign, I wish them our very best.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will she also include within her inquiries, and her thoughts about ambition, some more control over the negative procedure? The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), who introduced the Bill today, asserted that anybody who was against an order passed under the negative procedure would be able to pray against it, but the opportunity to ensure that a prayer results in a debate is almost non-existent. That is a theoretical, rather than practical, constraint. One of the issues I have been trying to raise is—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Sir Christopher is a parliamentarian with enough experience to know that that is a very, very long intervention. He has been here from the start; he could have chosen to contribute in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As we have not yet heard from the Minister, I am not prepared to take a closure motion at this time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In the light of the number of people who voted at 9.35 am, I think it is highly unlikely that any closure motion could be carried, because it would need 100 Members to support it. I have been speaking for only two or three minutes. I know the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) is keen to get on and discuss his Bill, which I know the Government wish to talk out—I am a little bit perplexed about that.

The negative resolution procedure would be necessary only in an emergency. I was quite tempted to extend my remarks, because the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) tried to link the contents of the Bill with today’s first anniversary of the election of what I think is undeniably the worst Government this country has ever experienced. Would we really have wanted to celebrate that in the pubs? Last night, I was commiserating with a group of Conservatives in a London constituency about what had happened over the last year, and explaining to them that they should take courage from the fact that at least we are 20% of the way through this ghastly Government.

Access to Sport: PE in Schools

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for leading this debate and for the way that she has set out the issues.

Sport and physical education in schools is not only vital for the future of our children, but critical to the health and prosperity of our nation. As we face higher levels of childhood obesity, increasing mental health concerns, and a need to foster a healthier and more cohesive society, it is more important than ever to make physical activity a central part of the school experience.

The benefits of PE and sport extend far beyond childhood. The life skills gained through physical activity, team work, leadership and communication help young people succeed in school and prepare them for their future careers. According to the Youth Sport Trust, 87% of participants in the Set for Success programme said that they know more about how their skills can help them in the future, with 96% of young people reporting an improvement in at least one of team working, communication or leadership since taking part. These skills are crucial to helping young people thrive in their careers and contribute to the future economy, aiding the Government’s mission to kickstart economic growth.

I wish to take a moment to recognise the incredible work that is being done in my constituency of Mid Cheshire by organisations such as the Vale Royal School Sport Partnership and Active Cheshire. These organisations are working tirelessly to increase the opportunities for physical activity in schools and communities.

Since 2006, the Vale Royal School Sport Partnership has been instrumental in bringing sport to schools across Northwich and Winsford. School sports partnerships were an early casualty of the coalition Government, with the announcement that ringfenced funding would be removed in a letter to the Youth Sport Trust from the then Secretary of State, Michael Gove, in October 2010, in direct contradiction of what the Conservatives had said when in opposition. In Northwich and Winsford, the schools got together and decided that demolishing an entire infrastructure and proven delivery system that was improving children’s lives here and now was not the way to go. So they pooled their funding and saved Vale Royal School Sport Partnership and it is still delivering for children today.

Through well-organised PE programmes, inter-school competitions, and community initiatives, the partnership has helped to increase participation in sport among young people in my area. It offers resources, training and support to teachers, ensuring that every child has the chance to experience the benefits of physical activity, regardless of their background or ability. If the Minister would like to visit my constituency and see the value of the work undertaken by school sports partnerships, I am sure that they would be delighted to receive her.

Similarly, Active Cheshire is dedicated to creating a culture of movement in schools and communities. By providing schools with the tools they need to integrate more sport into their daily routines, Active Cheshire helps foster environments where children feel encouraged and supported to be active.

I cannot let this moment go without mentioning Northwich Rowing Club, which celebrated its 150th anniversary this month. The club has enjoyed huge success in recent years, having produced three Olympians: bronze medallist Emily Ford, and gold medallists Tom Ford and Matt Langridge. What makes me proudest to have them as representatives of my home town is the work they do with schools in partnership with Warrington Youth Rowing to open up access to the sport and break down the perception of rowing as an elitist sport. Every year they give dozens of children across our local secondary schools—all pupil premium children—the opportunity to learn to row, which they otherwise may not have had. Together, these organisations are making a real difference, providing children with the opportunity to develop lifelong healthy habits.

I am conscious of time and so will conclude by highlighting a date for the diary. On 4 June I am sponsoring Youth Sport Trust’s national school sports week’s parliamentary drop-in. Montell Douglas, who represented Team GB at both the summer and winter Olympics, will be in attendance, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and other colleagues will come along to support this worthwhile event.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I shall certainly do my best. I call Josh Dean.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

Thank you.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and what is interesting from hon. Members’ contributions is that none of us particularly excel at sport—I certainly do not—but we have seen sometimes in later life how important participation in sport is. She is right that it is not just about elitist sport; we could talk about Harlow Parkrun where people come together as a community and take part in sport every Saturday morning. There are so many examples where sport does not need to be elitist. Of course we want people to excel at sport, and of course we want the next Laura Kenny or Glenn Hoddle, but we want people to enjoy sport: the impact it has on their mental health is huge. I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing on the Select Committee to champion that point, and I look forward to that being fed into the curriculum review.

Increased transport costs are among the biggest challenges that teachers have raised with me. For some Harlow parents struggling financially, and low-income families, transporting their children to away fixtures is just not possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—and the other bits—mentioned the Lionesses. We have all been inspired by Lucy Bronze and others in that team, and young girls in Harlow have been inspired by them as well. However, many girls and young women in Harlow have to leave Harlow to go to Bishop’s Stortford, of all places, to access sport, so we clearly need to do more to ensure that sports facilities are readily available and close enough for everybody to go to them.

As someone who is not the most sporty person in the world but appreciates the value of sport, my plea to the Government is to invest in PE in our schools, because it helps develop skills such as resilience and physical and mental health, as mentioned previously. It should not be just for elite athletes; it should be for everybody to enjoy—even slightly over-the-hill former maths teachers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Front Benchers, it is important to put on the record that I, too, was always picked last. I call Max Wilkinson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would always be my first pick. [Interruption.] Sorry, that was a terrible start, wasn’t it? Let me do better. Otherwise, my jokes will end up going down like the US stock market.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned rounders, and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) mentioned the school that I went to. That took me right back to my GCSE PE assessment, where we were told that we would do rounders because it was the easiest and we would get good grades as a result. I regret to inform the House that I got a three out of seven for rounders. I have no idea how, and that led to my failing to get a C grade at GCSE PE. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] I know, and I became the Liberal Democrat Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson despite that failure—not that a D grade is a failure.

I will get serious now. We are in the midst of a crisis of sedentary lifestyles and obesity. Almost a third of children and young people are classed as inactive. More than one in four children is either overweight or obese, and the mental health crisis among young people is widely acknowledged to be totally out of control, not least because of the subject of the previous debate on social media. These facts shame our nation and store up huge problems for our economy, our health services and individuals. That is why the debate is timely, and I commend the hon. Member for Stafford—and the villages—for securing time in the Chamber, because instilling a love of sport and exercise in young people can do so much to turn around and tackle the public health crisis, and that starts in school.

For me and for many of us, my earliest memories of taking part in sport are of playing football on the primary school playground, but I know from first-hand experience what happens when schools do not have the facilities to offer proper PE lessons. When I attended Broadoak school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, it was falling down, and we had one playing field left for the whole time we were there. We were all crammed on to it at break time. That meant we were not able to play as many fixtures as we otherwise might have done. I was too weedy for rugby, and the guy who was captaining the football team just picked his mates and did not like me, so it made little difference to my school experience, but it did have an impact on many others. It probably had an impact on what else went on at the school, which struggled with a difficult catchment area. Although I rarely took to the field for my school teams, I did achieve something brilliant in the fourth division of the Cardiff University intramural games: I scored from the halfway line against the Japanese society—a moment I will never forget, nor will anyone else who was on the pitch that day.

On a more serious note, 42,000 hours of physical education have been lost from the curriculum in the last decade. That is a travesty. State secondary schools in England taught 284,000 hours of PE in 2021, down 13% from 2011. I have many high-performing independent schools in my constituency and many good state schools, but the difference in provision between the independent and state sectors is marked. We need to ensure that the state sector is providing the very best for children.

The proportion of pupils in years 7 and 8 who can swim the standard 25 metres has fallen in the last eight years, with disparities evident among demographic groups, giving rise to concerns about equality. That is not surprising, because 217 school pools have been lost over the last 15 years. Swim England says that the Department for Education cannot even provide statistics due to the number of schools not properly reporting swimming lessons.

Sport England suggests putting PE at the heart of the curriculum by protecting time for it and subjecting it to suitable rigour. It suggests a really important change from traditional school approaches—that we reimagine the PE curriculum, so that it is based on enjoyment and meaning, rather than forcing people to go into a scrum and run into each other on the pitch. That is wise, because not everyone is into that kind of sport; they might be into yoga, dance or something else. Let us be expansive about this. Enjoyment is the single biggest factor that drives up the number of minutes that children spend playing sport.

The Lawn Tennis Association is among the bodies calling for us to enact the chief medical officer’s recommendation for one hour of sport and physical activity to be delivered inside and outside school every single day. To do its bit, the LTA is offering free teacher training and a grant for equipment. It is also asking for clarity about the future funding of the park tennis project, and I hope the Minister can provide that clarity or take the matter up with her colleagues.

The medical experts and sports organisations know what is screamingly obvious to everyone else: sport and physical activity is the silver bullet for solving our public health crisis. If we can get it right by instilling healthy habits among people at an early age, and then providing them with opportunities through their life, much of the rest of the challenge we have in the NHS will fall into place. It is not fashionable to say that, because we are supposed to just stand up and shout, “Save the NHS!” but I think we in this place all know that it is much more complex than that.

Facilities are core to the challenge. In my constituency, I am supporting Pittville school’s efforts to upgrade its badly outdated sports hall. When the kids play badminton, the shuttlecock hits the ceiling. The school has been waiting for ages to get its application through the planning system. One of the local councils has, remarkably, raised an objection on conservation and heritage grounds. I hope Ministers agree that the planning system should be making it easier for schools to build more sports facilities, not getting in the way. I hope Ministers will also consider designating sports halls and swimming pools as critical health infrastructure. That is a really important idea for Ministers to take forward, because in these straitened times, it costs the taxpayer nothing to do that.

In February 2013—so long ago that I had a full head of hair—Ofsted published a report recommending that schools spend at least two hours a week on PE. All these years on, there is still no requirement for schools to provide those two hours. We want to ensure that every child has access to high-quality PE, as well as extracurricular sports activities. That would ensure that all children had access to some form of physical education, which is not always the case. We need to restore those two hours. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are considering that?

School also serves as an important gateway to sports clubs. The Sport and Recreation Alliance is calling for better links between schools and sports clubs—something the Liberal Democrats passed a policy on as long ago as 2004. Is that one simple change part of the Government’s agenda? We all know that the Government are dealing with tight finances, but it is important to note that every pound invested in sport is likely to generate a return on our investment of more than £4. I cannot think of a better investment for this nation to make.

We in this place often talk about the pressures on the NHS, and about making a proper effort to ensure that children benefit from a love of sport and activity. If we can marry those two up, we will ensure that many children who are growing up to be obese, unhealthy, and depressed are saved from that fate. If we fail to get this right, Members from across the Chamber can carry on saying “save the NHS” and complaining about waiting times as much as we like, but it will not make a difference. All we will ever be doing is dealing with an epidemic of chronic physical inactivity, and mental illnesses caused by inactivity. We will be denying generations to come a love of sport and physical activity, which would be a dereliction of duty on the part of us all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

The Government remain committed to adopted children and children who are in kinship placements or have special guardianships. The Government will continue to work together to make sure that sufficient funding is in place and is more timely.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important UQ.

It is utterly extraordinary that we have had to summon the Government to the Chamber to provide clarity on whether they have axed a programme that ended yesterday—or so we thought—which supports 20,000 of our most vulnerable young people. The Government have been given lots of opportunities to clarify the funding situation. The Prime Minister was asked about it in the Chamber just last week. Either they did not know at that stage, or they just did not want to tell us—or, more importantly, the thousands of young people using the programme. Even by current Department for Education standards, this is utterly chaotic.

I do welcome the decision today, but can the Minister tell us when it was made? She recognises the impact that it has had on children and families up and down the country, but that impact is the result of her decisions and her delay. Can she please explain to us why this has happened and why the Government could not confirm the future of a £50,000-a-year programme sooner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I congratulate the hon. Member on being a grandfather of six, and I hear the concerns he has raised. I share those concerns, and the Government will continue to work to ensure that the support services are in place for all children who need it, including those who are involved with this funding.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. I will allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

It is time to put an end to this blocking and fiddling. Skills England was in the Government’s manifesto. The public voted for change and Skills England is a key part of delivering it. Let us end the delays, defeat these amendments, get Skills England set up and get on with the task of delivering for the British people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and our amendments—new clause 4 and amendment 6—are suggested in the same spirit. There were good reasons why standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers, but now the Government are bringing it into the Department. Alongside other changes, such as shortening apprenticeships and axing higher apprenticeships, that risks damaging the status of these qualifications, which we have been working to build up.

The Budget was bad for employment, and it will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprentices. Rather than addressing the problems that they are creating, the Government are reorganising. It is the umpteenth reorganisation in recent decades. The Government’s own recent impact assessment says that the reorganisation will lead to a delay and drop in apprenticeships, hence our amendments.

For decades, politicians have said that they want to make apprenticeships more prestigious. On average, twice as many people started apprenticeships each year under the last Government as under the previous Labour Government, but higher apprenticeships grew fastest of all. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went from just 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year—a huge increase. We increased the quality of apprenticeships, too, which was much needed, as has already been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

In 2015, a devastating Ofsted report found that some apprentices who had been on an apprenticeship for more than a year were not even aware that they were on an apprenticeship, and the skills they were learning were things like making a cup of coffee, which are not life-changing skills. Things were being funded that did not benefit young people, but did allow employers to pay a lower wage. Whereas we lengthened apprenticeships, this Government have cut the length of apprenticeships to eight months. By abolishing IfATE and bringing it in house at the DFE, they are eroding that employer ownership that we worked to build up. Whereas we grew higher apprenticeships, they are about to abolish most level 7 apprenticeships. That is a taste of what is to come if our amendments are not accepted. The Government are doing this because in opposition they promised that employers could take 50% of their levy funds and spend them on other things.

On 20 November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who will respond to this debate said that this commitment was “currently being reviewed”. But just weeks later, on 9 December, the Secretary of State said the Government were still fully committed to “50% flexibility for employers”. When I asked the Minister in Committee whether that was still the policy, she said that she would have to get back to me. As the Skills Minister said in the Financial Times, far from the 50% being a promise—as employers were led to believe—it will, in fact, all depend on the outcome of the spending review.

Businesses are starting to raise the alarm. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that a “lack of clarity” about the levy is creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses” and is “worrying and destabilising”. Employers say that this is leading to firms pausing hiring of apprentices.

Since the levy was introduced in 2017, real-terms spending on apprenticeships and work-based training have increased by about a quarter from £2 billion to £2.5 billion. Moving 50% of all that money out of apprenticeships would obviously lead to a substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships. In a written answer to me, Ministers have confirmed that the Department has an internal forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, but they have also said that they will not publish it—I think we all know why that is.

The previous Government moved to make it more attractive for small and medium-sized enterprises to take on younger people. Since April, 16 to 21-year-olds have had 100% funding, rather than requiring the 5% employer contribution. We need to build on that and cut bureaucracy for smaller businesses, but the Government’s answer is different: they plan to abolish the highest-level apprenticeships and redistribute the money. I thought the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on his amendment 2 was so right. I will not be as articulate as him, but I will try to add to the points he made, and I hope the Minister will listen to her wise colleague. Employers and educators can see that this is a trial run of what it will be like as Ministers take more control with this Bill, and they are warning that it is a big mistake.

Dan Lally at Sheffield Hallam University says that level 7 cuts will

“disproportionately impact on public services…We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as advanced clinical practitioner…These are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our level 7 apprentices…come from the areas of highest deprivation.”

For example, level 7 apprenticeships are absolutely central to the NHS’s long-term workforce plan. Last year, we saw the Government’s disappointing decision to cancel the level 7 doctor apprenticeships. That means there will be a shortfall of about 2,000 medical places a year. Students who had already started on the medical doctor apprenticeship have sadly been left in limbo, and I am concerned the Government will do something similar to nurses as part of the level 7 cuts. The NHS’s workforce plan proposed an extra 50,000 nurses coming through the apprentice route. Around a quarter of them tend to be on an “Agenda for Change” band 7, which typically requires a master’s equivalent, so we would expect about 11,000 of those nurses to be coming via level 7 apprenticeships. If the Government get rid of them, that is a huge hole in the NHS plan.

As well as the NHS, local government makes huge use of level 7 apprenticeships, including the extra town planners that the Government say are needed to deliver on housing targets. Deborah Johnston at London South Bank University says:

“Over half of the employers we work with…on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of…reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful.”

The professions are also worried. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that axing level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK. It says:

“removing Level 7 apprenticeship funding will mean that fewer UK training roles are created. Instead, organisations are likely to turn to offshoring to replace UK training roles”.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central rightly said that it would lead to people being outside Stoke-on-Trent, but in some cases it would lead to them being outside this country altogether. That is why the Campaign for Learning has called for a skills immigration worker test before defunding level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not simply go from investing in British workers to importing workers from other countries.

Likewise, the Chartered Management Institute has said:

“cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships would risk creating gaps in leadership…at a time when business and the public sector need them most.”

I have been contacted by several firms worried about the abolition of the solicitor apprenticeship—a way into the law for people from less privileged backgrounds. Attwells Solicitors, for example, says:

“Reducing funding to level 7 apprentices runs the risk of removing opportunities into professions”

and that

“Apprenticeships help break down barriers into not only Law but all career paths which could be inaccessible to young people without them.”

As well as hitting employers, on the other side of the ledger—this is why our amendment is important—axing level 7 will be destabilising for university providers. It will particularly hurt those institutions that have tried to do the right thing for those who traditionally do not go to university. Sixty-six universities deliver level 7 apprenticeships, and a prestigious institution such as Cranfield University, which is a postgraduate-only institution with deep industry links, will be hugely exposed if the Government wield the axe in the way they plan. York St John University has something like 100 level 7 apprentices. Other institutions such as the Open University, Manchester Met and the University of West London are all exposed, too.

Culling level 7 is a big mistake. These apprenticeships are vital across the public sector and are a way into the professions for people who might otherwise struggle to enter them. Above all, they are the capstone of a drive to make the apprenticeship system more prestigious. British Airways carried on running the Concorde even though it was a small part of its business because of what it called the halo effect. It knew that it changed the way the organisation was seen. By creating the top of that pyramid—the very top of the ladder; people can go all the way—level 7 apprenticeships create a halo effect around apprenticeships, and that is a vital part of why we should not get rid of them. Worse still, it was crystal clear from the Minister’s replies in the Bill Committee that the Government are keeping open the option to move on and take an axe to level 6 apprenticeships too, which would make that mistake even bigger and will not, in fact, drive money towards L2 and L3.

The other day we learned that the DFE is to cut the adult skills budget by 6%—something for which Ministers criticised the previous Government but are now doing themselves. Ironically, that came out at the same time as, and was overshadowed by, the welfare reform Green Paper, which mentioned training 18 times. In Committee, the Minister refused to confirm whether the Government would continue to provide the extra 10% funding to get T-levels going, even though providers are crying out for clarity on that. It is no wonder that many employers would like the certainty that comes with a degree of independence from politics.

Wise people on the Labour Benches want that, too. Lord Blunkett said in the other place:

“When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”

He noted:

“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]

Even those on the Labour side who were involved in dreaming up Skills England have argued for its independence. Likewise, various employer bodies, including the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Skills Federation and the Construction Industry Training Board, have argued that it should be more independent.

As Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out, the problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels as if the second half is missing, and that second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body. The original draft of the Bill did not even mention Skills England. As Baroness Blower, another Labour peer, has pointed out, the appropriate move from where we are now would be to make it a statutory body. That is why our amendment would make the Bill do what the Government are pretending it does by actually setting up Skills England, which was clearly the intent of many on the Labour Benches.

Given all the problems that the Government are creating, the very act of a further reorganisation is likely to compound the effects of the Budget. The impact assessment states:

“The transfer of functions from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill… This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways”.

So there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Employers and educators are criticising the uncertainty that the Government are creating; Labour peers are arguing that Skills England should be made independent, but the Government are ignoring those on their own side with experience; and employers are warning against axing valuable qualifications, but the Skills Minister is determined to end them. Yet another reorganisation, yet more centralisation, no clear vision—it is another big mess.

Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for his passion in bringing forward this Bill, but for his service as a lawyer before entering this place. He brings that expertise from his previous profession here. Will he join me in acknowledging that in places such as Plymouth this problem can be even more acute? Plymouth is not particularly near other large cities, so the tendency is for children to be placed in care very far away—sometimes 50 or even 100 miles away, as he highlights. As he gets to the part of his speech where he highlights some statistics, will he just acknowledge—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I just point out to Members that interventions, while always welcome, do need to be briefer than that?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a particular problem in the south-west—his part of the country—and in his constituency, which he represents so ably. In fact, there are some care leavers with that experience in the Public Gallery who are from that part of the world. There are particular issues there.

My Bill does not seek to overhaul the care system or burden already stretched local authorities. It sets out three clear practical measures. First, it would place a statutory duty on local authorities to collect and publish data on distant placements—specifically, how many children are placed more than 20 miles from home, and how many have been moved in the past year due to a lack of suitable local provision. Secondly, it would require every local authority in England to produce an annual local sufficiency plan, which is a clear, forward-looking strategy setting out how they will meet their duty under section 22G of the Children Act 1989 to secure sufficient accommodation in their area. Thirdly, it would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to publish a national sufficiency plan after each financial year. That strategy must bring together the data collected from local authorities, and set out what action the Government are taking to support councils in meeting their duties.

That, in my mind, is a sensible, common-sense approach. This Government clearly take their responsibilities in this area seriously, but future Governments may not. This initiative will keep their feet to the fire. Together, those three provisions introduce something that our current system clearly lacks: clarity, co-ordination and accountability. The Bill does not ban distant placements. It rightly makes space for cases where distance is necessary, whether for safety, for therapeutic care or for stability. There needs to be flexibility in the system.

I am pleased to be joined in the Gallery today by Georgia and Kane, two care-experienced young people whose courage and insight continues to shape this debate. In fact, this Bill would not be before the House if it were not for them and many of their friends and colleagues who have campaigned so passionately on this issue. Their stories are vital, because behind every placement statistic, every sufficiency plan and every consultation document, there are real lives shaped by the decisions that the Government make and that we make in this place.

Kane, at just 16 years old, was moved from his foster home near Kingsteignton to supported accommodation far away in Exmouth. The move separated him from his twin sister and left him feeling alone and invisible. Georgia’s journey meant that she moved multiple times while in care and spent extended periods in mental health hospitals as a teenager, often far from home. She recently told the Education Committee how she had to be declared homeless in order to access the support she needed near to her networks. She described a kinship placement that offered love, stability and safety, but that broke down because her carers received no formal support. She was left navigating high-risk supported accommodation alone, often living alongside people experiencing exploitation and with serious mental health needs, all while trying to complete her A-levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. Care should always be the last resort, and later in my speech I will speak about the false economy of spending billions of pounds on a care system that is failing children—most importantly—but also the taxpayer and everyone else. Early intervention is absolutely critical, so I completely agree with the hon. Member’s point.

How have we got to this stage where, as I have just touched on, the system is failing in so many different aspects? The reasons are complex. Too often, distant placements simply reflect a chronic lack of local provision, with a market-driven care system unable or unwilling to provide safe, nurturing homes close to where children live. As we have heard, the result is thousands of children being let down by a failing system.

One of the most significant contributions to the Government’s Bill, and indeed to our understanding of the whole system, was the independent review of children’s social care led by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). That review laid bare a system that is under immense strain, one in which the needs of children are too often shaped by market forces and a postcode lottery rather than what is in the best interests of those children, which is what the Protection of Children Act 1978 requires and should shape all Government policy.

My hon. Friend’s review could not have been clearer: too many children are being placed far from home. It called for a fundamental reset—a shift from a reactive, fragmented care system to one grounded in early intervention, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) has advocated for, with strong relationships and homes that are local, loving and stable. It warned of a dangerous reliance on large private providers, many of which operate with little accountability and at high cost. We could have a whole separate debate about the extortionate costs of private companies in the care system and the profits they are making on the backs of desperate local authorities. That review also made a powerful case for rethinking the way in which we plan for care, arguing that the absence of a joined-up national approach has left too many children at risk of instability, isolation and, in some cases, real harm.

We know from councils that the crisis in placement sufficiency is leaving them with little choice. They face a dire shortage of foster carers, especially those trained to provide therapeutic support, and they are locked in bidding wars with other local authorities, or priced out by private providers demanding fees that would make even a well-resourced system buckle. If the state is going to remove a child from their family and their community —an enormous, draconian power and responsibility—the least it can do is ensure that every child does not lose everything else in the process. We must not only protect children, but nurture them; we must provide not just safety, but stability. I hope that the Bill lays the groundwork for that ambition. It would ensure that we do not just talk about sufficiency but plan for it. It would ensure that we treated data not as a bureaucratic requirement, but as the foundation of good care, and it would ensure that Parliament played a role in scrutinising the system, rather than simply reacting to its failures.

The Bill would not ban distance placements, because, as I have touched on, there will always be cases where a child must be moved, but it says firmly that they should never be the default. Placements should never be driven by gaps in provision, lack of planning or market dysfunction, and the Government must take a leading role in changing the care system.

As I have said, I welcome the legislation going through Parliament, and I applaud the Education Secretary, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is in her place, for putting children in care front and centre of the Government’s agenda. That has not happened for many decades; many Governments of different colours have failed to properly grasp the issue, but I am pleased that the Government are doing so. However, I urge them to go further. I fear that some measures and ambitions will be lost if we do not ensure that the care estate in every locality improves its capacity.

The Department has a wide array of challenges, and this is a particularly difficult one, but the Bill, which would be essentially cost-neutral, would keep the focus on the agenda without placing too much responsibility on local authorities. The Government know that, yes, they must work in partnership with local authorities, but they must also take strategic decisions about where provision is needed, how it is funded and how we ensure that market dynamics do not dictate children’s futures.

I want to be clear that none of this speech is about blaming councils or local authorities, many of which are doing their level best under enormous financial constraints, and are firefighting in a system in which the odds are stacked against them. I hope that this modest Bill can give them the tools that they need to plan, build and provide, rather than simply outsourcing and hoping for the best.

The Bill would change expectations by restoring proximity as the norm, and placing the burden of justification on those who propose to go against that norm. If it were our children, we would expect them to stay close to home and their community, where they feel safe. We would expect a proper plan. Ultimately, that is all the Bill asks of the Government. The children in our care system deserve nothing less. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As there are no further Back-Bench speakers, I call the shadow Minister.