Higher Education Funding

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate.

Southampton is home to two excellent universities and yet in my constituency, only 7% of kids on free school meals will hold a degree by the time they are 22. Of those who do not receive free school meals in Itchen, just 19% will get there. If we go a few miles up the road to Winchester, however, that become 39%. We must make sure that higher education is not shut down as an option for young people. In my speech, I will focus on three points that are becoming worryingly clear about the funding system as it stands: it is not working for students, it is not working for universities, and—I fear—it is working only for the Treasury. I do not believe that is what this Labour Government are about.

First, on students, I was the first in my family lucky enough to go to university. I started in 2000 when fees were—wait for it—£1,025. My annual loan was about £3,500. We looked enviously on the generation before us, who did not pay fees and who received a grant to go to university. This generation is looking enviously on my generation, which is worrying. I went on to spend 20 years as university lecturer, so I saw every subsequent wave of student finance agreements. The Treasury Committee has concluded that we were essentially mis-selling some of the previous loan agreements on terms that no commercial lender would ever be allowed to offer.

[Dr Arthur]

I know I do not look it, but when I went to university, Margaret Thatcher was still our Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible that funding for students’ day-to-day living costs was better then than it is today.?

[Darren Paffey]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely salient point. Many of us never imagined that we would get to an even worse place, but here we are.

Only the top three earnings deciles of recent intakes will ever pay off their student loans in full. The nurse, the teacher or the engineer on £35,000 will pay 9% for decades and still never clear the balance. Dare I say it, but if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, let us call it a tax and treat it as one. If we properly sort it, it could well be a better deal than the current loan system.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very compelling speech. I wonder if he noticed the coverage in The Telegraph, which reported that graduates on the minimum wage will be making repayments on three out of the five student loan plans from next year onwards. Does he agree that this, in many ways, breaks our social contract with the student population, who were essentially told that they would earn a huge amount more and should therefore contribute to their higher education?

[Darren Paffey]

I agree that this is not the deal that I think our country wants to offer its young people, particularly if the Government are about breaking down barriers to opportunity.

Secondly, on universities, the Office for Students reported in May that more than a third of English higher education institutes were already in deficit last year, and that if recruitment simply flatlines, nearly six in 10 could be in deficit within five years. International student numbers, as hon. Members have stated, fell by around 45,000 last year, and student visa applications in the first months of this year were down by a third.

In May, the Education Committee, which I sit on, warned of the real threat of insolvency. Universities such as those in my constituency—the University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University—are anchors of our local economy, and that is reflected around the country. We cannot afford to let them fail. They are not immune to the job losses that are affecting other HEIs.

Thirdly, I turn to the taxpayer. The Government estimate that the state meets 35% to 40% of the cost of higher education. Others take a different view: the Institute for Fiscal Studies put the figure for the 2022 cohort at around 3%, with 97% of the cost met by students. Sir Philip Augar recommended a 50:50 split. Whichever number we look at or choose to believe, we are a long way from the balance that Parliament intended, and the bill is quietly being passed to young people.

That brings me to the international student levy. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely welcome the return of maintenance grants—for families on low incomes, they really matter—but a grant of up to £1,000 a year amounts to about £20 a week, and it is to be funded by a levy of £920 per international student from 2028. Last November, that was forecast to raise £445 million in its first year, but that forecast was made before visa applications fell by a third. I fear that a grant that depends on a shrinking tax base is a good intention built on sand. Before the levy legislation completes its passage, will the Minister commit to publishing an updated forecast of what it will raise based on today’s recruitment figures? Will she confirm that maintenance grants will be protected if they fall short?

Finally, the Government have said that the whole student finance system is under review, and I welcome that news enthusiastically. Will the Minister set out how and by when that review will report, and whether it will move us back towards a fair balance between the state and the individual? As hon. Members have very eloquently said, this is all about intergenerational justice. It is about whether 22-year-old me would look at university and say, “Yeah, I can risk that,” or whether I would now be more likely to say, “Nah, my family has never done that and I simply cannot afford it.” It is about growth and the 7% of kids in Itchen, and more across this country, who deserve better opportunities and better odds.

Education

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Education questions on 14 September 2026.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

A new report by the charity Become shows that personal advisers are in some cases supervising up to 46 young care leavers each. These are the people who can make the difference between young people setting out into adulthood well or feeling completely on their own. Will the Minister therefore commit not just to reviewing the support, but to a funded national strategy and a cap on caseloads, so that no care leaver in Southampton or anywhere in this country has to face adulthood alone?

[Josh MacAlister]

I welcome Become’s report, which builds on the review into the early deaths of care leavers that I commissioned a few months ago. I would like to thank Ashley John-Baptiste and Clare Chamberlain for their important work in bringing to the country’s attention the tragic number of young care leavers who die far too young. That transition to adulthood is an important moment to get right. PAs play a crucial role in that. We are looking at additional training for PAs and also at changing the regulation that sits around them, so we can set a higher expectation.

[Official Report, 14 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1434.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister):

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

The Department for Education guidance is clear on this, and it differs from the NSPCC’s, so I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the DFE guidance.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

A new report by the charity Become shows that personal advisers are in some cases supervising up to 46 young care leavers each. These are the people who can make the difference between young people setting out into adulthood well or feeling completely on their own. Will the Minister therefore commit not just to reviewing the support, but to a funded national strategy and a cap on caseloads, so that no care leaver in Southampton or anywhere in this country has to face adulthood alone?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

I welcome Become’s report, which builds on the review into the early deaths of care leavers that I commissioned a few months ago. I would like to thank Ashley John-Baptiste and Clare Chamberlain for their important work in bringing to the country’s attention the tragic number of young care leavers who die far too young. That transition to adulthood is an important moment to get right. PAs play a crucial role in that. We are looking at additional training for PAs and also at changing the regulation that sits around them, so we can set a higher expectation.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I am dismayed that we find ourselves here yet again on this Bill. I remind the House that this is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and currently one of the biggest threats to our children’s wellbeing is online harms, not least as a result of harmful social media, alongside other online harms such as addictive gaming and chatbots.

I recognise and welcome that the Government have moved a little since we last debated amendments to the Bill last week: Ministers have finally made the commitment in legislation that the Government must take action, rather than may take action. There has also been some limited movement on the issue of addictive by design—a key principle that the Liberal Democrats have been pressing—although clearer and stronger wording on this point would be helpful, not least in view of the recent court cases in the US.

Critically, we have been pressing for a clear time-bound commitment to action. I must say that the initial timeline put forward by the Government in the other place this afternoon was, frankly, laughable. When parents and carers, young people, grandparents and teachers in their tens of thousands are demanding urgent action on teenagers’ access to harmful social media, setting out a three-year timeline for introducing regulations to this place—let alone implementing them—was ludicrous. I note that this evening the Government have shortened that period to 21 months.

Ministers have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that the current consultation is very short and sharp. I welcome the fact that they have committed to bringing forward a report in three months’ time, whereas previously they had said that it would take six months, but why do they need a further full year to lay regulations, and then a further six months’ buffer? Countries around the world are taking action right now. This Government have shown that when they want to move quickly on an issue, they have the means to do so. The compromising of children’s wellbeing and safety online every single hour of every single day is a damn good reason to move quickly and to bring forward amendments acceptable to both Houses of Parliament and, most importantly, to the people of this country.

In the debate in the other place this afternoon, we heard excellent speeches from across the party divides—Labour, Conservative, Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat—all calling for urgent action. A number backed Lord Nash’s amendment again, even though many, including the Liberal Democrats, are unhappy with his particular approach, all because we want to ensure that the Government move further and faster.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the noble Baroness Kidron’s excellent amendment that was considered in the other place this afternoon? As the Government will know, she is widely respected on the subject of online safety. Her amendment deals with all these important issues: safety by design; a harms-based approach with variable age-gating; and allowing the Government eight months to lay regulations and up to 12 months in total to enact them. Indeed, Lord Nash’s amendment, which the Government are choosing to vote down, committed to action within eight months, instead of this three months, plus six months, plus 12 months, plus another six months, adding up to 21 months before we might see any action. My noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones set out clearly that the Liberal Democrats support the approach set out in Baroness Kidron’s amendment, and I strongly agree with him.

I would like to repeat my noble Friend Lord Mohammed’s offer: we stand ready to come together, cross-party, to act together, legislate together and protect our children from online harms and ensure that teenagers do not have access to harmful social media. The time is now. We will keep pressing through the night if necessary, until Prorogation, to ensure that our children and young people are not let down by this Government at this critical moment.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I start by saying how proud I am of the Government in bringing forth a momentous Bill. Its Committee was only the second Bill Committee that I cut my teeth on, and it is a Bill of a generation. It breaks down so many of the barriers that were built up under the inaction of the previous Government. I really welcome what this Government are doing.

I very much welcome Government amendment 38K. Last July, I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber what action he would take to keep young people safe online and safe from social media. He promised to look at the measures needed to create a safer online experience. That has been done; we have seen that, and it is part of the consultation that is going on. He also said that we will not hesitate to take further steps. A process of three months, plus 12 months, plus six months is, by many definitions, a little hesitant. If it is the worst-case scenario, may I seek the Minister’s assurance of the shortest timeframe that she sees as possible?

By 2028-29, the childhoods of many who are already facing these harms on a daily basis will be over, at least in age. If we do not act as soon as we can—this year, not next—the childhoods of too many will be brought to a crashing end by poor mental health, addictions, cyber-bullying, and the porn and violence that we know is rife in social media content.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case for the importance of acting quickly. One of the reasons many of us want swift action is the concern that those who profit from the proliferation of addictive and negative content online may be driving some of these conversations. We have talked a lot tonight about timelines. Does he agree with me that it would be helpful to hear a cast-iron assurance from the Minister that public health activists, bereaved parents and the children themselves will be at the heart of the consultation about how this is brought forward, not the tech companies?

[Darren Paffey]

It would be most welcome to hear the Minister’s reassurance about who this Government are acting for. The 21-month process may not serve young people growing up in Britain, or their parents, carers or teachers who are crying out for help. Will the Minister acknowledge that any delay past that minimum timeframe for action will only serve the very companies that my hon. Friend referred to—the social media companies who even to this day deny all responsibility and make absurd claims, as they did in the Education Committee last week, that social media is not inherently addictive? It is not good enough to let them get away with making such ludicrous claims.

Will the Minister give an assurance from the Dispatch Box tonight that, regardless of whatever temper tantrum the tech companies probably will throw when this Government do take action, their policy and commitment is to act in the weeks and the months following the consultation, and to bring in laws now, in 2026, to protect children and young people?

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

We were elected on a manifesto to deliver a limit on the number of branded items to cut the cost of school uniform. Unfortunately, some of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could have unintended consequences that would not tackle the problem we are facing, which is that children should be smart when they go to school, but it should not cost their parents the earth.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Literacy levels among Southampton’s children remain a challenge, and I commend the work of so many teachers in attempting to close that gap. Can the Minister say how schools in my constituency can best engage with the National Year of Reading? Will she join me in welcoming plans for a Southampton literary festival to inspire a lifelong love of reading in every child in Southampton?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I welcome and celebrate the launch of the Southampton literary festival by Bitterne Park school, and I thank my hon. Friend for all his advocacy in his constituency. The National Year of Reading is packed full of exciting events for all to participate in, and I encourage Members to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What steps she is taking to ensure that families of children with SEND have early access to support.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to ensure that families of children with SEND have early access to support.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

In December, I announced at least £3 billion in high needs capital, which will support local authorities to deliver high-quality places for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. However, while places are necessary, alone they are not enough. We know that high-quality teaching is essential to achieving the best outcomes for all pupils and students. That is why I am delighted that we are investing £200 million over the course of this Parliament to deliver more SEND training than ever before, to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery and ensure that more children and young people receive the right support at the earliest opportunity.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing to make sure that the voices of parents and children are heard during the reform that we intend to bring forward. As she will have heard through those conversations, the system just is not working for children and families. Through that national conversation on SEND, I have heard directly from parents, educators and experts across the country, and they echo the themes that my hon. Friend has just set out from parents in Pimlico and elsewhere in her community. Accountability is an issue that I take extremely seriously, and we will set out more detail in the schools White Paper.

[Darren Paffey]

We all know that early support for children with SEND depends on getting the co-ordination right among parents, schools, local authorities and the NHS, but we also know that is not always happening. Some of the children I have been supporting in Southampton Itchen are spending months out of education and taking years still to get an EHCP, all of which compounds the challenges for them and their families. What can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that SEND families across the country will not have to wait until the end of the White Paper process to see better joined-up working for children who need that support now?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for all the work he has done in this area. He is right that parents should not have to wait. Even though we need to see a longer term shift in the system overall, we need to see change now. That is why we have taken action. One of the very first things I did as Secretary of State was to restructure the Department to put SEND right at its heart. We are investing billions to create more special needs places and also more places in mainstream settings, alongside improved programmes to support teachers and that £200 million of investment that I just mentioned. My hon. Friend is also right that early support and early intervention are critical. That is why I am delighted that we will make sure that there is a SEND professional in every Best Start family hub as they roll out.

Care Leavers

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

I completely agree. Period poverty can often be overlooked when thinking about the whole system, but for young women in care and leaving care who cannot access those products, it can be debilitating to their ability to access all the other services that we are talking about.

One care leaver in Doncaster said:

“Even though I’m not homeless now and I’m safe and secure, it worries me that that will be the next step. It has happened before and it could happen again”.

Another said:

“I don’t think anyone who hasn’t experienced homelessness could understand how scared I was.”

Many in temporary hotel accommodation and still under corporate parentship have to face the choice between affording food or washing their clothes. One said:

“The government are my corporate parents, and they don’t act like it. Would a parent allow a child to go a week without washing their clothes? Would a reasonable parent allow their child to be homeless or not eat?”

The answer to that is no.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point in this debate, which she has thankfully secured. Last week, a group of Southampton care leavers came to Parliament, and raised housing and accommodation as one of the most urgent issues they want us to tackle. I have heard her welcome, as I do, innovations like Staying Put and Staying Close, but supported lodgings are another family-based option for care leavers where the young person gets not only a place to live but the practical help and relational support that she is using those young people’s voices to talk about so powerfully. The early evidence is positive, but does she agree that with too many care leavers living in substandard accommodation and without that support, initiatives such as Home for Good’s supported lodgings are also worth Government attention, particularly in National Care Leavers Month?

[Sally Jameson]

I agree; I will come later in my speech to a couple of local examples of supported lodgings, which, if applied nationwide, would have a transformative effect on the support that care leavers receive.

These young people often do not have the benefit of family support to help them find accommodation, or with rent and security deposits. Because of that, they are incredibly vulnerable not just to homelessness but to a whole raft of predators who see an opportunity to exploit them. Will the Minister work across Government Departments to increase the setting up home allowance, give priority to care leavers on housing lists in authorities where they have resided for over six months, reform universal credit so that care leavers are entitled to the over-25 weighting, and commit to work with the Department for Transport and regional mayors who have powers in the area to give free bus travel to care leavers up to the age of 25? While I am at it with the asks, can we also include free prescriptions for care leavers? In the context of wider Government spending on the population, the numbers are small, but I think everyone in the Chamber—that includes the Minister—knows that doing those things would make a huge difference to the most vulnerable group in our society, including the young people I have quoted and those on the minds of hon. Members in the Chamber.

There are other areas in which care leavers are often disadvantaged; I have seen them myself. When I worked as a prison officer, I was a single point of contact for care leavers in my jail. I learned that, shockingly, it is estimated that 29% of the prison population are care leavers, and they also make up over 50% of the youth estate. Young care leavers are also 10 times more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence than young people who have not been in care. As a Government, and indeed as a Parliament, we cannot rest while that remains a reality for such a vulnerable group. Will the Minister work with the Prisons Minister in the other place to develop a national care leavers in custody policy, ensuring that support for young people—wherever they move to—is partnership based?

I will take a little time to pay tribute to an organisation in my constituency that has been mentioned previously. Doncaster Housing for Young People, which I am a patron of, provides tailored housing support in the form of supported lodgings with host families as well as floating support to help sustain tenancies. The organisation has shared stories of those who have had to leave foster places when they turn 18. One young woman in that position shared how she was not ready emotionally or financially to live independently, but, thanks to Doncaster housing for Young People, she moved into supported lodgings where she could build life skills, continue her studies and focus on her wellbeing.

Children’s Social Care

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

I thank and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the chair of the Education Committee, for leading the inquiry, securing the debate and making an incredibly powerful case as to why, particularly as we begin National Care Leavers Month, we must see action on children’s social care.

I welcome the Minister to his role, commend his work on the independent review of children’s social care, and congratulate him on being in the most powerful position possible to deliver on something that, tragically, was shelved for several years, until the new Government picked it up.

I am not only a proud member of the Committee that carried out this work, but as some know, I have a particular interest in this issue. For a number of years before being elected to this place, I was the cabinet member for children’s services and education in Southampton City Council. With help from many others, I tried to transform services that literally had life or death consequences for many children. It was a pleasure to do that, because I was once there myself: I grew up in foster care, and happily I was adopted. I am a big advocate of the life-transforming difference that the right care at the right time in the right circumstances can make, because had that not been the case for me, thanks to my parents, social workers and others along the way who made decisions on my behalf, I would not be standing here today.

In my maiden speech, I said that, of the many things we get involved with in Parliament, the one thing I want to do is be able to say to those to whom this report speaks, whose lives and circumstances it seeks to make better—those who are going through some of the most challenging times in life, who suffer the stigma of still being more likely to end up in prison than in university or in this place—that we will ensure they have the right support. I want that experience to forge in them a steely determination to achieve their full potential. Many of these recommendations are in that vein.

I was proud to bring a group of care leavers to Parliament earlier this week. I thank the Minister again for making time at the last moment, with no notice, to meet them, so that they could share their aspirations. Their voices were not only heard in this place; they went to the very heart of decision making—the Department for Education.

I want to talk about three key issues: the importance of getting early intervention right, foster carers, and care leavers themselves. The Government have committed to early intervention and help. In Southampton, I saw the power of shifting from reactive services to preventive services, with early help and intervention. That can reduce the number of children entering care, the amount of time they spend in care, and the damaging impact that being in care for too long can have. For many, it turns them around. Unfortunately, the damage can be compounded by the experience of care, so there is a great need for support. I think I am preaching to the choir when I say that early intervention is absolutely key.

The Government’s response points to the existing grants and the local government finance settlement, which deals with some early interventions, particularly around things such as housing support. Will the Minister please say a bit more about the conversations he is having with MHCLG ministerial colleagues? Will he ensure we seize the opportunity to make a difference? When council funding is announced later in the year, it will be welcomed not only by cabinet members like I was, leaders in this area and people who work in it, but most importantly by young people themselves, who will see that we are taking this issue seriously.

On the recruitment and retention of foster carers, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood made a powerful case setting out why what we are doing is not working. We need to do more. I believe that a national fostering strategy is needed to bring together the good will and the good practice. We know that there are pockets of excellence across the country, and there moments when a particular campaign works well. In Southampton, we were delighted to have one of our former Saints players engage with us on this issue—we could at least win at something, even if it was not football in that season. That joint working to promote the benefits not just to children, but to families who welcome young people into their homes for however long is needed, was a real success. None the less, recruitment numbers go up and down, and I am sure that is replicated across the country.

I hope the Minister will take on board the need to consider again a national fostering strategy that is properly resourced and brings together the comprehensive measures needed for progress. That would help to bring clarity and far greater awareness of the current crisis, and crucially, it would bring hope. As I believe the Minister said the other day, we want there to be choice. We cannot simply say, “Well, we have a foster carer, but they happen to be 20 or 30 miles away and that is the best fit we can get for an individual.” I think we know that we can and should be doing better than that.

On care leavers, our report concluded that it is rightly absolutely unacceptable that young people are left to support themselves financially when they turn 18, particularly if they are in full-time education and have to face either reducing time spent in education or dropping out completely to support themselves. I do not know if anyone has read the book by Ashley John-Baptise about the decision he faced almost 20 years ago either to accept a property that a council had finally been able to offer him as a care leaver, or to take up his place at university. That is not a position we want anyone to be in. Thankfully, the intervention of an MP at that point made a difference. The system should be making the difference, not forcing young people to choose between opportunities that, in most cases, those who are not care-experienced would not even have to consider.

There are things that no responsible parent would allow, and the state—councils—are in loco parentis. Therefore, as this Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity, we must keep the most life-changing opportunity, education, open to all care-experienced young people. Where finance is the barrier, we need to remove that, and where the risk of a placement breakdown is a barrier, we must get extra support for stability. As has been recommended, we need to look at extending corporate parenting to all public bodies that are required to support our children in care. A national care leaver offer, as in recommendation 75, should still be on the table; it would go hand in hand with the local care leaver offer that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is bringing in.

As argued strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), designating care experience a protected characteristic is another tool in our box that we could use to make a difference for children and young people. That is recommendation 78, and I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on what the Government are doing there. Work is ongoing in Parliament, and the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), Baroness Longfield and activists such as Terry Galloway and Chris Wild are working on it. We would be pleased to meet with the Minister on an ongoing basis to ensure that we are working towards it.

Finally, I will list a few of the things that Atlas, Mac, Ethan and George told us when they visited this week about what would make a difference to their experience of being in social care, and in particular leaving social care. They are asking for more funding and focus on mental health and wellbeing. That is in recommendation 49. We know that child and adolescent mental health services are in a poor state, whether someone has been in care or not, and urgently need to be fixed. The Government said in their response that they will take a multidisciplinary approach and that they will review statutory guidance. Can the Minister say when we can expect that? The crisis is ongoing. We cannot continue to wait much longer.

Children want more placements closer to home. They want that stability. They want more affordable housing. As has already been outlined, that speaks to the wider challenges in society that the Government have to tackle: child poverty, relieving financial pressures on families, and having better support for parents, which we know will be given through the new Best Start family hubs.

I am glad that parental pay and parental leave are under review so that in the earliest, most crucial days we might see stronger bonds in children. For some, that may remove the likelihood that they have to go into care. There are risks outside the home that we need to fix, and there are risks in the home such as social media and smartphones. Many things impact the stability of our young people’s experience, particularly when they go on to leave care. We need training and experience for the young people themselves, but young people told us that they also want their social workers to be as well trained as possible. Some of them want someone, as they put it, a bit older. They probably mean someone with the deep experience to be able to coach them through the upheaval that many of them face, particularly as they become independent. They want to feel like they are part of a normal family, as much as possible.

I again commend the Chair of the Education Committee for leading this inquiry. It was the first priority of the new Committee. I ask the Minister to make it clear to us and, more importantly, to foster families, to children who are care-experienced, and to those who are leaving care that it is the first priority of this Government. I welcome the many responses that have reassured us of that commitment to make change happen where it is desperately needed, but the Government must not allow this to be a wait and see moment. The Minister must assure us that decisive action will be taken on those recommendations because, as the Chair of the Committee has said, he will be able to count on the Committee’s full support if he does.

Early Education and Childcare

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

As I mentioned earlier, £8 billion will be spent on the entitlement offer this year, increasing to £9 billion next year. The core funding rates do include forecasts around earnings, inflation and increases to the national living wage, but as I mentioned, we will review the funding distribution in due course and will consult on that formally.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. As schools and early years providers start the new term across Southampton this week, we have two new nurseries—at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school—which will add to that provision thanks to the investment of this Labour Government. That is going to make an enormous difference to families in an area where one in four children are growing up in low-income families. Will the Minister join me in thanking everyone working across all Southampton early years settings to give children the best start in life, and in urging parents to ensure that they take this support and all the other support that has been mentioned that is also being delivered by this Government?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend from along the south coast for his question. I know that Portsmouth football club are very much looking forward to playing Southampton this season. We promised to make childcare more affordable and we are delivering on that. I pay tribute to him and the work that he did in local government, and is now doing in this place, to ensure that childcare is more affordable and accessible for children in his constituency.

Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and it is not the first time—it is generally the case that no one from Reform is present. On this issue, I am afraid that Reform MPs are chronically absent, as we say in education.

I will continue with my theme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the huge difference in performance, and the divergence in performance, between England and Wales cannot be explained by poverty rates or ethnicity. It is to do with the reforms that were not undertaken because of trade union pressure in Wales.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I agree that it is crucial to measure the progress of our children in key subjects to give them the best opportunities in life, but does the shadow Minister not accept, as I and many others do, that the climb up the international league tables was caused by restricting the breadth of the curriculum? That has come at the detriment of many opportunities for children over recent years.

[Neil O’Brien]

I do not think that is true. Looking at the evidence pack produced by the Government’s curriculum review, it is clear that some of the arguments are overstated. It is true that we reversed the decline in the number of young people taking double and triple science; that had been falling for years, and it went back up again because there was more focus on science. It is true that there are a limited number of hours in the school day, but I do not accept that we had some sort of Gradgrindian educational agenda. There continues to be a broad and balanced agenda. If Labour Members want to say that much more time should be spent on a particular subject, they should at least be clear about where it will come from.

Children in England were ranked the best in maths in the whole western world in the 2023 trends in international mathematics and science study, and they moved into the top five in the global rankings for science. What happened in Wales and Scotland? We do not know, as their Administrations removed themselves from those competitions because they do not like accountability. It is the same at all levels.

Whereas we favoured parental choice and autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability, the current Government take a very different approach. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the Lords, dilutes parental choice, and it gives local politicians more control over pupil numbers for the first time since 1988. The greater autonomy for schools that we brought in has been replaced by a tide of micromanagement of curriculum and staff, and the absurd situation where if someone wants to put up a bicycle shed they have to apply to the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the ultimate form of accountability—placing schools under new management via academy orders—is being slowed down and stopped, which has been criticised even by Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).

The Labour party’s attempts to mess around with Ofsted to please the trade unions have watered down accountability for parents and made things more complicated, but they have not made anybody happy; nobody is happy with what has been proposed in the end. The Government have axed all the forms of support that we were making available to schools for subjects from advanced physics to maths, Latin and advanced computing—they think they are elitist. They have also axed the behaviour hubs, even though there is clear evidence that they were working and schools that went through them were twice as likely to be good or outstanding afterwards. The reform agenda is just not there.

At one point, the Government’s big answer was that they were going to employ 6,500 more teachers: they were going to increase VAT and employ all these extra teachers. The Chancellor said at the end of last year that every single penny of that VAT increase would go to education, but then, confusingly, the Prime Minister said that the money had been spent on social housing instead. It has been a long time since I studied formal logic, but we cannot spend every single penny on education and also spend that money on housing; we cannot spend it on two things. As it happens, we now know that actually there are not those extra teachers; there are 400 fewer teachers. We added 27,000 teachers under the last Government and under Labour there are 400 fewer teachers.

At the point when the numbers came out showing that there were fewer teachers, the Government suddenly declared that primary school teachers do not count—that the fall of 2,900 in primary school teacher numbers did not count. Ministers implied that that had always been their intention—they said, “How dare you say that wasn’t our intention?”—but they announced this policy in a primary school, and they said they would hit their targets for early years through an increase in primary. Now they say, “Oh, numbers are falling in primary,” but numbers are falling by a lot less than when they made the pledge in the updated forecast. If we apply the same logic, half of secondary schools have falling numbers, so perhaps that will be the next way they try to monkey around with the numbers to pretend that the opposite is happening. I would not mind so much if we did not get these chirpy press releases from the Department saying, “We’re doing so well; we’ve got all these extra teachers.” There are fewer teachers—that is the bottom line in what has happened here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), although I feel I am breaking a run of excellent speeches from the Staffordshire massive. I very much welcome this debate on giving every child the best start in life. I think one thing we can agree on across all the Benches is that that is not just the title of the debate, but a moral duty. It is the measure of a Government’s values, and it is also the foundation of a thriving and fair society.

In my constituency of Southampton Itchen, the unfortunate truth is that too many children are still being held back—not by the lack of potential, but by the lack of opportunity. It is high time that that changed, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are making that change happen. My constituency is in the much vaunted London and the south-east, which we usually hear about for its wealth and prosperity, but the reality is often different in Thornhill and Weston, where one child in every three is growing up in poverty. That is not the picture of wealth that we are often lumped in with. Many children arrive at school already behind in language, health or emotional development.

There are dedicated teachers and early years professionals who do everything they can. I pay tribute to all those I have met and worked with over a number of years, first as a councillor and then in the past year as an MP visiting schools. I do not face the same height challenge as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central when visiting those schools—indeed, in some secondary schools the pupils are taller than me these days. Dedicated teachers and professionals—I know colleagues across the Chamber will also be meeting them—are working against a legacy of underfunding and fragmentation of services.

That is why I welcome the Labour Government’s plan for change and our focus on a number of policies that will help to give every child the best start in life. They include: expanding high-quality early years education; the new nursery places for children aged two to four; and the schools-based nurseries in my constituency launched at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school. I am grateful to see policies like the rolling out of free breakfast clubs in every primary school. The pilots established at St John’s primary and nursery school and St Patrick’s Catholic primary school are hugely welcome. I have visited and helped to serve breakfasts to the children. I have seen the benefits they are already enjoying of a solid start to the day. Yes, that is through the food, but also through socialising, being with their friends and getting ready to learn.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. As a fellow southern MP, I share his concern about the importance of explaining that there is real poverty across the south of England, as well as in many other parts of the country. He makes a point about the breakfast clubs, which are outstanding and he is right to say how valuable they are on a number of fronts. We have two in Reading. My fellow Reading MPs and I are very proud of them and we look forward to seeing more soon.

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wish him every success in his constituency with the pilot breakfast clubs.

We have all welcomed in the last week a restoring—let us be honest—of Sure Start-style family hubs which will provide wraparound support for parents. From the hubs I have seen in my constituency over recent years—I know that work will build back up again—the potential for mental health support, childcare advice, toy libraries and work support are all there in those places.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is setting out, in a very eloquent way, the amazing work of the Labour Government. I am proud—I hope he agrees—of the previous Labour Government’s achievements in setting up and rolling out Sure Start. Independent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed what amazing outcomes children had later in life, with higher GCSE scores, reduced hospital admissions, improved physical health, the early identification of special needs, maternal employment and better mental health outcomes. I hope we will see the same from the new Best Start family hubs, too.

[Darren Paffey]

My hon. Friend paints the picture of the crowning glory of the previous Labour Government, in the Sure Start centres, not just because they were a nice feelgood thing but because of the strong evidence of the benefits they brought. What a disgrace that year after year the Conservatives cut council budgets and shut those very centres. Despite Tory austerity that hit Southampton hard—we lost 60% of our Government grant at Southampton city council—we made the often tough decision financially but the right decision in purpose, to keep those buildings open across the city, because they were crucial centres of support for local families.

I cannot pretend that the range of services offered in those centres was the same as it was a quarter of a century ago when the previous Labour Government set them up under our admired and much-missed colleague, Tessa Jowell, but those buildings still served a purpose. That meant that when the Conservative Government, having shut so many Sure Start centres, experienced an amazing epiphany—a revelation that, actually, they were a really good idea—and reinvented them under the badge of family hubs, our former Sure Start centres were there and ready to be built back up again. I would gently remind the shadow Minister that the family hubs, while welcome, were not new, either. In the lost years between those Conservative budget cuts to children’s services and their later U-turn, far too many families in my constituency and across the country were left without those crucial services.

The Government are also investing in school improvement, particularly in areas with long-standing underachievement and where attainment gaps have remained stubborn. My view is that the upcoming curriculum and assessment review is a huge opportunity to introduce a refreshed and inspiring curriculum with manageable assessments, rather than over-assessment and high-stakes exams, and links to exciting training opportunities in the reality of jobs in the 21st century economy into the future.

As other hon. Members have said, the special educational needs and disabilities system is absolutely broken. I commend the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is no longer in her place, for leading our Committee’s inquiry on this subject. As I am sure is the case for other Members, I hear a lot from constituents in surgeries and through my inbox about situations that are in many cases avoidable, and which we must certainly work hard to avoid in the future, with children’s needs not being met because of a system that needs to be fundamentally rebuilt, described by its own architects as “lose, lose, lose”. A reformed SEND system must give every child the support they need to access school and ensure they are not excluded from the potential for success in life that every single child deserves and is capable of.

Numerous schools have fantastic and innovative practices going on, including Bitterne Park secondary school, which I visited last week, which is establishing a variety of units, specialist rooms and particular provisions within the mainstream, working towards a truly inclusive school. In reforming the SEND system—I do not underestimate or envy the task of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench here—I have asked Ministers to consider how we can scale up the good practice in many of our constituencies to end the postcode lottery and guarantee consistency across our country. These are the kinds of policies that have been announced—these are the building blocks of a much better future for children in my constituency and across the country.

If we are serious about change, we must not only welcome and consolidate the significant changes this Government are making, but commit to continual improvement. In the wind-up, I ask the Minister to address the Government’s commitment to prioritising areas like Southampton Itchen. As I have said, we may be located in the south—often assumed wrongly to be a magnet for wealth—but child poverty is entrenched and multi-generational. We must not have a blind spot to need that is based on geographical assumptions.

Will Ministers ensure that our new Best Start family hubs are truly integrated with schools, NHS services and local councils so that they do not simply replicate past silos? Will Ministers also guarantee long-term funding? I think I know the answer, but it is always worth asking. Long-term funding that goes beyond a single Parliament—the Prime Minister has spoken for a long time now about a decade of national renewal—is not just desirable, but absolutely necessary. We need investment that ensures change is deep, not just fast.

Will Ministers have regard to support for the families that children are growing up in? We have heard from hon. Members about better parental leave. I commend the work of The Dad Shift, among others, in raising awareness of that issue.

Will Ministers also ensure that they look well down the line to not just the early years, which are a crucial foundation, but the years ahead? We must ensure that our children and young people who grow up in care have long-lasting support to thrive in life, guaranteed by meaningful and strong corporate parenting responsibilities in our public services and a national care leaver offer to close the attainment gap experienced by those who are care experienced, even up to support into training or university.

In closing, children growing up in Southampton Itchen can be hopeful about the building blocks that are going in under this Labour Government. However, they do not want or need just charity; they need a chance—a chance to thrive in life. If we get this right, and I believe that we are absolutely setting out in the right direction, we will change not just individual lives, but the future of whole communities. Therefore, when we are giving every child the best start in life, that has to mean in every single postcode in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I remember that, soon after becoming a Minister, I met many voluntary and community organisations, and one of the first things I did was to really thank them for all of the services and support they provided during really tough times under the previous Government. Some people had watery eyes as I acknowledged the significance of the work that they had been doing and that they continue to do as they contribute to the needs of our society and some of our most vulnerable children.

[Darren Paffey]

I am delighted to hear that each of these Best Start family hubs will have a fully trained and professional SEND co-ordinator to support families. Could the Minister say a bit more about how she envisages those co-ordinators working in partnership with local education, health and local authority partners to avoid silo thinking?

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he connects up the various agencies and Departments and points out the significance of working in close partnership. That is absolutely the right way forward.

This Government are delivering our promise to parents, providing more support to working families than ever before. We are delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of childcare a week for working families, backed by Government funding, which we expect to reach £9 billion from next year. This will save families an average of £7,500 a year and give parents, especially mothers, the freedom and choice to work. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I have visited many primary schools in my constituency, and I am sure many Members have done the same, but I want to encourage them to visit their new Best Start family hubs as well.

Quality matters when it comes to early education and childcare. A high-quality setting is what all parents should expect for their child, but a great early years education starts with great people, and that is why we are backing the people who care for and teach our youngest children. We will raise the status of our workforce and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, all staff matter. We will introduce a new professional register. We will train more early years teachers, because we know that their impact is significant. We will double the number of stronger practice hubs and build strong links between settings and schools, so that educators can share best practice and provide the best possible care.