Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I apologise, but I am going to make some progress.

I turn to Lords amendment 106, which deals with phones in schools. The amendment is unnecessary, as this Government are already crystal clear that mobile phones have no place in schools at any point during the school day. We have strengthened the weak guidance provided by the Conservative party to make it absolutely clear that schools should be mobile-free environments by default. We have written to every headteacher in the country to tell them that phones should not be in their schools. We have asked Ofsted to ensure that phone bans are properly enforced, and we have rolled out targeted support, through our attendance and behaviour hubs, for every school that is struggling to make that ban a reality. The Conservative party seems to be deliberately ignoring those facts. Of course, if the consultation tells me that making the guidance statutory will make a difference, we will do it—our amendment in lieu makes that possible—but my honest opinion is that the issue is not whether or not the ban is on the statute book. Rather, the problem is with the clarity of the guidance, and the quality and enforcement of policies, and we have already acted to fix all three.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices? Laura in Taunton has put those devices to use for her son. That has transformed his life; it provides an autistic child with an alternative means of communication in school. I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Laura on her work.

[Olivia Bailey]

I do congratulate the hon. Member’s constituent on her work, and can confirm that there is provision in the guidance—which he can show her—for schools to make exceptions for such exceptional cases.

I turn to amendments dealing with school uniforms and admissions. On Lords amendment 41B, I welcome their lordships’ support for tackling school uniform costs. However, the amendment is unnecessary, and risks creating uncertainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent and the direction of policy at a time when they will be implementing the limit. The Department for Education has surveyed parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I am very pleased that we have proper time for debate today. I record my dismay that our last debate on this Bill was cut so short, when we had so many important amendments to consider. We spent more time walking through the voting Lobby than scrutinising the provisions of law that we are sent here to make.

I want to start by talking about children in care. As we have just heard, their relationships with siblings can be the most important connections they have. Too often, those relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support them effectively. To that end, I would also like to commend the work of the charities Become and the Family Rights Group, who have sought to keep siblings connected. It is for this reason that I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 17.

The Minister said that it is a travesty that siblings have been separated. I gently say that it was her and her colleagues who made Labour MPs oppose the Lords amendment from my noble Friend Baroness Tyler in the last round of ping-pong. I am glad the Government have had a change of heart, accepted her approach and put forward their amendment in lieu. I congratulate and thank my noble Friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield. She has been championing this issue for many, many years and I recognise her tireless work. I also recognise the tireless work of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who, as we have just heard, has also been working so hard on this issue.

The amendment addresses a critical oversight in our current regulations, ensuring that the bond between siblings is not severed simply because their care status differs. These relationships are often the only constant in a child’s life. Protecting them provides a vital anchor of stability amid the profound upheaval of new care arrangements.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 requires headteachers only to “have regard for” guidance on smartphones in schools, rather than mandating the existing guidance. Young people themselves say that they want a break from the stress of social media at school. We all know the impact that our phones have on our concentration and focus. If Ministers and other hon. Members in this House cannot resist the temptation to look at their smartphones during a debate like this, how on earth do they expect a 14-year-old to ignore a TikTok notification in a double science lesson? According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, a quarter of children’s notifications go off during the day. I am deeply alarmed that our children’s educational attainment should be hindered by an issue that is so simple to solve. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about guidance and asking Ofsted to look at it. After they made the announcement that they would include the issue in Ofsted inspections, I met a group of headteachers from my constituency. They said to me, “This is yet another thing you are piling on to the Ofsted inspection. Please can you ask Ministers to just get on and make this law?”

Where schools have managed to ban phones during the school day, they have seen a real transformation in pupils, going from being glued to screens to chatting and playing Uno at break times. Headteachers report significant reductions in incidents of low-level disruptive behaviour and lower in-school truancy, and children and teachers are reporting being happier in school.

However, many headteachers are still battling to get their schools to that place. Our headteachers need proper support to do right by our children, where they are challenged by parents who want still to be able to reach their children even during the course of the school day, to ensure that children have a healthy and safe education free from distraction.

I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State if she is listening, to make this guidance statutory. Will the Minister support schools with the tools and funding to manage this transition to ensure that every classroom is a space where children can focus, learn and thrive, smartphone free, unless they have a need for a device for medical reasons, for special educational needs or because they are young carers?

It is a strange irony that the Government demand endless evidence before reining in big tech yet refuse a single review of their branded school uniform policy. By rejecting Lords amendment 41B to review the effectiveness of the Government’s cap on the number of branded school uniform items, as opposed to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a price cap, Ministers are effectively asking the British public to trust that they have exactly the right answer. The amendment is a significant concession on what we have previously proposed. It merely asks for a review of the policy after 12 months. We have a shared goal on both sides of the House to tackle the cost of living for hard-pressed families, but Ministers seem to lack the humility to admit that there is a chance that their policy prescription to bring down the cost of uniforms may be wrong. The Schoolwear Association has said that 61% of its members may increase prices based on the item cap.

The Government were forced to U-turn on winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on welfare reform for those in receipt of benefits. Why will they not accept the offer of an off-ramp to potentially prevent another forced U-turn somewhere down the line? What do they fear about testing their policy in a year’s time, just in case the uniform suppliers hike their prices in response to this policy, as the industry has repeatedly warned and as a basic understanding of market forces would suggest? The Government cite their manifesto as though it were a shield against better Liberal Democrat ideas, but a manifesto commitment is only as good as its delivery. Parents want action that will actually lower their bills. If the Government are so sure they have got it right, they have nothing to fear from a 12-month review.

On the theme of supporting families, I shall speak to Lords amendment 38. I first offer my belated congratulations to the Government on accepting the merits of part of the Liberal Democrat position in their amendment. Having spent a year opposing our efforts to ban big tech from collecting the data of under-16s, it is heartening to see Ministers finally recognise that we can no longer allow social media giants to treat our children’s personal data as a commodity to be harvested for profit. It is also welcome that the Government have moved towards the Liberal Democrat position of age ratings for social media, by accepting that children of different ages will be affected by the online world in different ways. But the Government have still not gone far enough. Their amendment says only that they “may” make provisions to tackle these issues, not that they will.

The Government’s amendment also remains silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the infinite scroll and the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government fail to recognise that this amendment will leave parents, families, children and indeed the Government fighting against big tech with one arm tied behind their back. The recent US court cases against Meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew. Those apps are designed to keep our children hooked.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. She is right that age classifications that tackle the social media companies, rather than going after children and their rights, are what matters. Recent research by PISA—the programme for international student assessment—on seven internet activities by 15-year-olds in 47 countries found conclusive evidence that life satisfaction is lower at higher rates of social media use by 15-year-olds. Does that not make acting on this issue now even more urgent?

[Munira Wilson]

I could not agree more. There is a plethora of evidence out there showing that we have to act, and we have to act now. I simply cannot understand why the Government are not committing to doing something soon.

Going back to the US court cases, one document revealed that Meta executives claimed:

“If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”

That is my 11-year-old daughter that Meta is talking about. Another internal memo showed that 11-year-olds were four times more likely to keep coming back to Instagram compared with competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman speaks to the language delays that are created by these apps. Does he agree that the fact that these additional needs are going to come into the system on top of reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system—which parents are already worried about—will create extra anxiety and extra pressures, and is going to store up problems for the future if they are not tackled now?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I do agree with the hon. Member. I sympathise with the Government—there are huge pressures in all policy areas, particularly children’s services, education and healthcare, and now they have to deal with the tech giants. The Government introduced age-gating for pornographic sites so that people under the age of 18 could not access them. That was absolutely the right thing to do; despite the fact that there are workarounds and technical ways for people to bypass that age-gating, it does project the majority of children from exposure to pornography. Now, the Government must deal with the virtual drug dealers. They must implement laws to protect our children from the harms those companies cause, and must also introduce laws to obligate them to change and redesign their platforms in order to design out those harms.

Academic studies have found that 24% of suicides among 10 to 19-year-olds are linked to high-risk use of digital technology. Heartbreaking cases such as that of the 14-year-old Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life in 2017 and whose legacy lives on through the Molly Rose Foundation, have demonstrated that social media use is undoubtedly contributing to rising rates of self-harm among young people. This is not some future risk; it is a real and present harm. We do not need more consultation, delay or half-measures; we need this Government to insist on safety by design to protect children from exposure to damaging content and platforms, and not to implement anything that aims at damage limitation. We need this Government to listen to our citizens, not to the tech giants. As such, I once again join right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the House in calling on the Government to commit to raising the age of access to social media to 16 and banning the use of all mobile phones in schools, rather than continuing to leave children exposed to systems that are causing irreversible and unnecessary harm.

Local Authority Children’s Services

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children’s services in local authorities.

I applied for this debate because of a 10-year-old constituent who was abused, tortured and murdered by those who should have loved and protected her. Her name was Sara.

Sara was found dead in the early hours of 10 August 2023. Her body was covered in bruises. She had a traumatic head injury, human bite marks and multiple broken bones, and she had been burned by a domestic iron. Next to Sara’s body, the police found plastic bags, packing tape and a cricket bat, all with Sara’s blood on them. The people who did that to Sara deserve a special place in hell. Sara’s death was not a one-off tragedy; it was the most extreme and horrific consequence of children’s services being hollowed out, fragmented and weakened over the years. Surrey county council is failing children left, right and centre.

Another example is what happened to my constituent Julia. She and her husband pleaded with Surrey county council for help with their daughter, Eloise, who had special educational needs. Surrey ignored those pleas and refused to give Eloise special educational needs and disabilities support, and eventually it took the parents to court because it was concerned that they were a safeguarding risk to their daughter. The court saw through that and sided with the parents. It said that it was Surrey’s lack of support for special educational needs that was failing the child, not the parents. Appallingly, Surrey tried to cover up its problems with special educational needs provision and push it on to a safeguarding failure.

Judith, another of my Woking constituents, was breaking up with her partner following many incidents of domestic and child abuse. She feared for her children’s safety if they continued to see their father. On the advice of Surrey county council, the family court gave the father visitation rights, and heartbreaking abuse followed. The court then took away the father’s right to see the children. That is why we need to end the presumption in favour of parental contact. Abusers should not care for their children. Surrey now insists that the father start seeing the children again. It says that it has a duty to explore whether contact would be safe by reintroducing the children to him. It looks like Surrey is rolling the dice and creating situations in which children can be harmed. This is supposed to be one of the most affluent areas of the country, and yet this is what our services—the services for my most vulnerable constituents—are like.

The day before Sara was murdered, Surrey’s children’s services turned up at the wrong house due to an administrative error. In another case, the council failed to show up to a promised meeting about a child’s care. As a result, the child did not get the support they needed—there are real-life consequences for Surrey’s incompetence.

In November 2025, the child safeguarding practice review that I called for into Sara’s murder was finally released, and it confirmed exactly what I feared: the state, and especially Surrey county council, failed Sara at every stage. All the warning signs were there, but they were not acted upon. The authorities were fully aware that Sara was at risk. She was placed on a child protection plan before her birth, yet was a victim of domestic abuse from that day onwards. Surrey social workers wanted to take her away from her father, but they changed their mind, and the consequences will haunt us all.

After Sara’s murder, the senior officer responsible for children’s services at Surrey county council, Rachael Wardell, was offered and accepted a pay rise of £8,700. I do not know how that woman can sleep at night. It sends a message that failure carries no consequences; in fact, it is rewarded.

The safeguarding review highlighted that there were national issues as well. Children’s services in one in five local authorities across the country are not good enough, according to Ofsted. There is a range of spending across local authorities. York spends £35 million and its children’s services are rated outstanding, but just down the road, Bradford—which, I admit, is slightly larger—spends £262 million and its children’s services are rated as inadequate.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is speaking about very serious issues, and I commend him for not apportioning blame to one side or the other; he understands that, in different circumstances, there are different reasons to blame. The Government’s removal of the funding uplift for the most remote authorities will have an effect on children’s services, as it will on SEND provision and a whole range of council services. In Somerset, for example, it is 53% more expensive to provide home-to-school transport than in an average authority, yet the funding uplift has been removed. Does he agree that that is a shocking way to treat our most remote authorities?

[Mr Forster]

I do. Funding is an issue; I am concerned that we are not properly resourcing our children’s services departments. The Government’s recent decision to shift funding away from rural constituencies like my hon. Friend’s could have a dramatic impact, and the Government need to recognise that in different parts of the country, there are different funding challenges. Obviously, a suburban-urban seat like mine has challenges, but it will clearly be easier and cheaper to travel around than his.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this really important debate. My feelings are very much aligned with the around 300 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the heart of this debate is a fallacy: that children are more at risk in home educating families than they are at school. In fact, the figures show the exact opposite. I will come back to that point in detail.

My concerns are about not only home educating families but rural schools and rural environments, where the limited resources mean that the Bill’s more onerous requirements on schools could drive some smaller rural schools out of the system and lead to them being closed. Rural areas have fewer and smaller schools, and rural schools have fewer administrative resources to deal with the new administrative burdens such as supporting staff to meet the new qualified teacher status requirements, dealing with increased monitoring, handling fluctuating pupil numbers and budgets, and so on.

There are significant risks to small rural schools that may well lead to even more pupils ending up in home education settings as a result of the lack of choice and lack of diversity of supply in rural environments. If pupils do end up in home educating families, they will find the environment is even harsher and the support from the Government is even more non-existent than it was before, and that the general environment is less and less helpful.

We have to take concerns about safeguarding seriously, as every hon. Member across this Chamber would agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has done serious work on that issue. I am happy to accept some of the Bill’s provisions, but there are real concerns about its more onerous requirements. I have significant concerns about the single unique identifier in particular. Let us remember that it gives any public body the ability to share any information, whether or not it is right, correct and accurate, without the knowledge or consent of parents. Anyone who thinks the public sector is good at looking after our data, and getting it accurate, has probably been living on the moon.

[Gregory Stafford]

Some weeks ago we had a debate in this Chamber about a petition signed by over 3 million people who oppose a national identity card scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if those people knew the details in the Bill, they would be equally shocked and concerned?

[Gideon Amos]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. All the concerns that lead me to oppose digital ID cards also lead me to oppose a digital ID for all our children. As the campaigners behind the petition have stated:

“Once children’s data is out there it cannot be controlled nor put back in the box.”

I could not agree more.

According to the Government’s own reports, 58 critical Government IT systems have significant gaps in cyber-security. Is that the kind of system into which we wish to put all our children’s details? Is that the kind of system that anyone wishes the data of their children and grandchildren to be put into? I do not think so. The Metropolitan police lost the details of 47,000 of its own officers. Let us take that as an example of how the public sector handles data, and consider whether we really want to provide the power to share data about our children across all public bodies: councils, social services departments, health authorities, schools, academies and all the rest of them.

As I said earlier, it is often held to be the case that home educating families are unsafe environments, but the evidence shows the opposite. Only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home educating families result in a child protection order being put in place, and such families are proportionally subject to far more child protection inquiries than non-home educating families, so they are massively over-represented within that cohort. The figures for children who are at school show that not 11% but 26% of inquiries result in child protection orders. Bearing in mind that a greater proportion of home educating families are investigated than families with children at school, a far greater proportion—more than double—of investigations of families with children at school result in a child protection order. The facts are evident: it is not appropriate to stigmatise home educating families.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for proposing an amendment to the Bill so that home educating families would not have to pay examination fees to take exams. There is zero support for home educating families. The Bill brings in even more stigma against those families. The amendment was defeated.

There is nothing in the Bill that will support home educating families, many of whom, as we have heard, are families with disabled children. A much higher proportion of disabled children are represented in the home educating community than in the school community, for the reasons we have heard—because special provision is not there and SEND provision cannot be obtained where it is needed, so many families give up on the school system. Some families need to keep their children safe so provide education at home. The vast majority of those families do so safely, putting incredible hard work into the education of their children.

Instead of the stigma put forward in the Bill, there should be support for home educating families, more work locally, more positive relationships between home educating families and local authorities, more positive work towards improving the education offer for those children and more support for those families at a difficult stage in the education of their children, many of whom will go back to school or college later on in life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in return for those extra controls, the Government or the Bill should offer some kind of support to home educating families?

[John Whitby]

I welcome support for all children, but I am trying to make the point that there is no negative judgment here. I say to those parents, “If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” I have also heard the Secretary of State say that privately and publicly.

Unfortunately, though, there are people—although very few in number—who, when they start to be asked difficult questions by the authorities, move school, move house or take their child out of school to avoid scrutiny. It is only right that local authorities should be allowed to refuse home education for a child who is subject to a child protection plan or going through section 47 action. We need to know where children are and we need to keep them safe. There is no bigger reason to be in politics than to protect, safeguard and support our most vulnerable children. That is why I, for one, am here.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and a privilege to speak on behalf of the 204 people in the Taunton and Wellington constituency who signed the petition and all the other families who are deeply concerned. It is not abstract for me, because of the support my wife gives to many families who have children with special needs, including in our own home. From my experiences with my own children and from my surgeries, I know the regular trials, the pain and the often extreme debilitating stress that families go through trying to get a basic, decent education for their children. Parents are driven to the very edge by a system that they have had to battle through every step of the way. It should not be like this.

Let me tell the House about Luke, a bright, motivated young man. Luke loves school and has high hopes for his career, but he needs help to get there. His parents now have to provide two-to-one transport support just to get him to and from school. Juggling in that way has resulted in Luke being more dangerous, lashing out on transport while travelling. His parents are working, paying taxes and, in short, doing everything that society asks of them, as well as caring for Luke with extraordinary dedication all the time when he is not at school, but how are they supposed to work and hold down full-time jobs while being denied the transport that they need for Luke? Every day that his education, health and care plan fails to be delivered takes him a step closer to full residential care, at hugely greater human and financial cost to everyone involved.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out all the problems. We are going to hear a lot about problems; there are also solutions. In my constituency, we have a wonderful school called Muntham House, which teaches high-needs autistic boys, 40% of whom go on to hold down a job and to be able to sustain themselves. That is what we can do if we do the job properly. Think of the saving to the state, as well as the huge reward for the families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of families in that position in his constituency. As the 122,000 signatures on today’s petition show, too many families are forced into crisis before help arrives. Many fear that the Government’s forthcoming reforms will make things even harder.

To its credit, Somerset council recognises that the system is not working, and it is working hard to turn around the position. The super-tanker needs to be turned around. The council has invested in the provision of more than 20 new in-school SEND units, which are now coming forward across the county. It has increased the number of EHCPs by 46%, even though applications have risen by 26%, and it has begun to see some reductions in complaints and tribunal cases.

Our councillors and I continue to challenge the team to do a lot better. These are only the early signs of improvement. It has to go further: that improvement has to be sustained. The system is not good enough, and it is failing our families. Government funding has to be part of the change, but families in Taunton and Wellington and elsewhere are worried that that change will threaten the future of children’s education. Their right to assessment and support must be maintained and there must be enhanced investment in both special provision and mainstream special educational needs provision.

Government Support for Ukrainians

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley]

The war seems further from ending—perhaps more protracted than ever. The EU clarified its position, extending temporary protection for all guests to March 2027 and requiring all member states to find ways for guests to have pathways to residency or settlement within those two years. The Home Secretary commented in a Select Committee that continuing the stability of education for children, university students and adults in training or apprenticeships is key and that enabling that continuity through housing and jobs is an important part of the Government’s support for Ukraine.

We need the Government to review the short-term nature of the Ukraine permission extension scheme urgently. Without urgent changes, we are at serious risk of putting thousands of Ukrainians—children as well as parents—into homelessness or worse, as the terms of their visas will be too short for them to carry on. We owe them much better treatment than we are currently giving them.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to share his sympathies for Julia in my constituency, who no longer has her flat or any accommodation back in Ukraine. She has secured a job with a legal firm that wishes to train her up and get her qualified, but she now finds that she may no longer be secure and safe in this country.

[Martin Wrigley]

That is a dreadful situation. I really hope that the Minister can give us some positive news, or at least a glimmer of hope of where we can go.

Gender Self-identification

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

It is shocking that over 16,000 people are currently waiting for treatment at the London gender identity clinic alone, and that it is currently treating people referred in the summer of 2019. There are 6,225 children currently waiting on gender waiting lists, and waits of more than three years are completely normal. If it takes that long to achieve a first appointment, imagine how long it takes to achieve two medical assessments.

The NHS figures issued last week have completely confused me. According to NHS England, the figures on referral for treatment for the whole country state that only 147 people are waiting more than 104 weeks—that is two years—for any treatment. How is that possible? Are gender identity clinics not included in the figures? It makes no sense at all. I would be interested to know how those figures were come up with. How can we look trans people in the face and tell them that only 147 people are waiting for treatment, when we know that thousands and thousands are waiting for life-affirming treatment?

Fifty per cent of trans and non-binary youth have seriously considered suicide in the last year alone, driven by stigma, exclusion and hate. A local teacher from Dorset told me that he found it deeply upsetting to see young people who feel that their rights are being stripped away. He said the ruling is not just a setback for human rights but an act of erasure.

A trans constituent told me that we need a system that protects all women, including trans women, and went on to say:

“I am asking you to see me and help build a future where trans people don’t have to fight every day to exist.”

What a sad state of affairs.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect trans people? In Somerset, for example, trans hate crimes have increased from 119 to 179. While providing women-only spaces where they are needed, we need to do more to stand up for trans people who feel frightened and afraid and who are being attacked.

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

We talk a lot about the needs of trans women but very little about the needs of trans men. I am deeply concerned about the impact on trans men who might be forced to go into women’s toilets. Many of them do an amazing job of masking and appearing to be men. I am sure that most of us know people but have no idea they are trans men, because so many have fantastic facial hair—more so than some men I know—and incredible muscles and tattoos. Imagine being a trans man who is told that they have to go to a women’s refuge. Imagine being the women in that refuge when a trans man comes in and says, “I have to be here because I’m still treated as a woman.” That is just offensive.

Dedicated Schools Grant

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on bringing us all together for this important debate to highlight the inequity of the system that built up under the previous Conservative Government and became more and more entrenched over those years. I am only sorry that more Conservative Members did not come to pay attention to this issue today. It is a huge factor in the wellbeing of children in all our constituencies, up and down the country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has pointed out, Somerset is one of the f40 local authorities and therefore one of the worst funded local education authorities. A child educated here in Westminster receives £4,000 more funding as a pupil than a child in my Somerset constituency of Taunton and Wellington. At the same time, the demand for SEND in places like Somerset has risen enormously. There has been a 60% increase in placements between 2014-15 and 2023-24 and, as a result, provision in Somerset, as in a lot of other places, is frankly unacceptable. It is not good enough and it needs to change.

Historical special educational needs funding, and the pattern for the national funding formula, is part of the problem. Spending should be based purely on current local need and not on historical need, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out in an important report. It says:

“The use of historical spending patterns as a factor in the 2018 high-needs NFF also helped to cement geographical inequalities in high-needs funding that had arisen over time”.

It goes on:

“The historical spend element determines 25% of the overall formula allocation and drives a large element of the variation in funding across areas. This bakes in…arbitrary differences in council funding that have arisen over time, and lead to large variability in funding per high-needs pupil across councils”.

On the high needs block part of the direct schools grant, it says:

“The present high-needs funding system was introduced in 2018, when numbers were mostly stable, and it incorporates many historical measures of need and spending that already drive substantial geographical differences in spending per pupil. It is ill-designed for the present context of rising need”.

The f40 organisation has said:

“More than 20% of high needs funding is based on a local authority’s historical SEND spending, which bears no resemblance to today’s funding landscape”.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, the system urgently needs reform.

Part of the problem is the problem of local government funding generally. In Somerset, £2 out of every £3 of council tax goes on care, whether that is adult social care or care for children, including special educational needs funding. It is no wonder that the outgoing Conservative leader of Somerset county council described that as a “time bomb” that “is ticking”. It is unfortunately likely to go off and affect children and families across Somerset, who are suffering the consequences of the legacy that our councillors are now trying to deal with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) pointed out, the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant has compounded the problems and challenges for authorities such as Somerset, which have a low property base value across the county compared with property values in other part of the country and have historically low income levels as a result.

The national funding formula therefore has to be improved. The f40 organisation—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on her work with f40—has said:

“Government is aware of the unfairness and has indicated that it wishes to level up, but it is a very slow process and, at the current rate, will take around 20 years for equitable funding to be established. That is a whole generation of children. Children should have the same opportunities and resources, regardless of where they live or go to school”.

I am sure Members across the House agree with that and I urge the Minister to make good on that promise to reform the system.

Three things in particular need to be done. First, we need greater support within schools for special educational needs children. That will reduce costs later; we all know early intervention matters for younger children and has the most effect. Secondly, we need more hubs locally providing specialist provision and to not rely on the private, unregistered schools sector for much of our special educational needs provision. That is highly costly and not serving pupils’ best interests because it means transporting them long distances. Thirdly, we need more investment, which comes back to reform of the national funding formula. Liberal Democrats particularly want to see reform of local government funding and social care funding, but also above-inflation increases in school funding and a dedicated national SEND authority. That is the kind of reform we need to see in this Parliament and I hope very much the Government will deliver it.

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

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom]

In considering the transfer of functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, we face fundamental questions about the Government’s accountability and the future structure of our skills system. While modest in size, the Bill has far-reaching implications for that system, and for millions of learners and apprentices. It represents a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability.

I have sat through many hours of debate on the Bill, during which Labour Members have extolled the virtues of Skills England, but let me emphasise again that the Bill does not actually establish that body, as many assumed that it would. It simply abolishes IfATE and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, an approach that risks creating a governance vacuum in which there is no proper scrutiny or independent oversight. It is clear from the evidence received by the Bill Committee that I am not alone in having those concerns. The Association of Colleges, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the University of Winchester and the Institute of the Motor Industry all raised similar issues relating to governance and accountability in their written evidence submissions to the Committee.

As was noted by many on Second Reading, skills policy in this country has suffered from constant reorganisation and restructuring. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has reminded us several times that Skills England will be the 13th skills body to be established in 50 years. Given that history, employers, providers and learners desperately need stability and clarity. In its evidence, the University of Winchester warned:

“The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body.”

It also observed that in IfATE, at present,

“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous.”

The Skills Federation raised similar concerns:

“The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand.”

It also said:

“Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs”.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause would help colleges such as Bridgwater and Taunton college, the biggest provider of apprenticeships in England? Will he join me, and other Members, in encouraging those colleges on their path towards awarding their own degrees?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

I am determined to use my time in this place to do all I can to help give every child the best possible start in life. No child should be left behind, and if we are going to achieve that, voting for this Bill is a good place to start.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

There are good elements in this Bill. In line with Professor Jay’s recommendation, I agree that the House must urgently make it a duty to report abuse. As new clause 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) sets out, we also want a new authority established to deliver national and local inquiries into rape gang culture and the like. I fully support breakfast clubs, especially following the invention of free school meals—a few years ago—by a Liberal Government.

These are good measures because they put the interests of the child at the centre of everything, and the Bill goes wrong where it puts ideology ahead of the interests of the child and loses sight of those interests. I do not support adding taxes to education, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and I am concerned about the effects on academies as well.

Any conflation of children being educated other than at a traditional school with safeguarding concerns is not borne out by the evidence. It is also an ideological position that is an insult to the parents and families of the 110,000 children—our constituents up and down the country—who are doing a great job in ensuring that their children are educated, whether they are home tutored or educated otherwise. In fact, according to local authority data published in academic research that has been submitted to the Education Committee, only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home-educated children result in a child protection plan. That rises to 26%—more than double—for the average of all predominantly school-educated children. Child for child, those educated at home are the safest and least in need of protection, so the overwhelming weight of new bureaucracy and legislation tackling home education as a sector is not justified. My hon. Friend’s new clause 48 is therefore quite right, because we should remove the burdensome and highly intrusive sanctions on such families.

Unless amendment 221 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) is agreed to, the Bill will enable grandparents reading to their grandchildren at weekends or in the evenings on a regular basis to be served with a notice, demanding a response on pain of a monetary penalty, by a council officer who chooses to issue one. These powers are really extreme and extraordinary. Instead, we should be supporting the interests of the child.

We should be supporting home-educated children and allowing them to sit exams without charging them hundreds and hundreds of pounds for the privilege. New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, would do exactly that. Without such a provision, can Ministers conceive of anything in the Bill that supports home-educated children? There is plenty to regulate them, control them and expose them to rigorous inspection, but there is not a single clause in the whole Bill that supports children being educated at home. Why the parsimonious Treasury cannot be persuaded to simply allow them to sit exams without paying hundreds of pounds is beyond me. Forgive me, but I cannot fathom why a Government would not want to provide for children to sit examinations.

In Somerset, our council has much a much better and proportionate approach, and it has developed a protocol in partnership with home-educated families. I am worried that that constructive approach will be swept away by the more confrontational approach that this Bill ushers in. At worst, there is the prospect of a disabled child being forced back to school by a local authority officer when they have good reason to be frightened of going back to that school, which really cannot be right.

Turning to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, I pay tribute to state schools such as those my children attended, and the independent ones in Somerset, where, as I have said, the local authority has a more constructive and positive approach to working with schools and families. I particularly pay tribute to the pupils at West Monkton primary school, who have written to me about their amazing plastics pollution campaign. I completely support their bid to ban single-use plastics, which they have written to me about. For those schools and the 5,254 children with an education, health and care plan who cannot get a school place, such as the family who came to my surgery on Friday, may I urge the Government to do more to help families with children with special educational needs? It is crazy that the system is preventing them from attending school when they want to. We need more projects like the great special educational needs centre being developed at Hatch Beauchamp school, which I visited recently. We need to be driven by the interests of the child, not ideology.

Finally, until the Government address the fact that £2 out of every £3 of council tax in places like Somerset is going on care—a national responsibility, in my opinion—then local services, schools and communities will see less and less investment. Social care funding must be tackled. It affects the whole of local government finance, including schools. That is not good for our environment, not good for jobs and not good for the growth of our economy.

[Sarah Smith]

It is a privilege to stand again in support of the Bill. If we are to improve our school system for the benefit of all children, regardless of their background or educational needs, their welfare and interests need to be at the heart of any reform. Opposition Members’ suggestions that that cannot be done without sacrificing standards in education could not be further from the truth. It is because the Government are ambitious for all children that the commitment to excellence in education is the driving force behind the measures in the Bill. Labour knows that when standards in schools drop, it is working-class children and those whose attainment levels may already be lower on paper but who are no less impressive due to overcoming additional learning challenges, who will suffer.

The Bill represents a cultural shift in how Government approach educational reform through delivering change in the sector through partnership and child-centred policy. The prioritisation of a child’s wellbeing and a focus on inclusion are not woolly concepts, but the bedrock of stability that will enable all children to thrive educationally.

It is not contentious to say that we currently have a fragmented school system that is letting down far too many children. That needs to change. Children need to feel like they belong in their school. Every setting, regardless of type, must be given the freedom to drive up standards in a way that meets the needs of its pupils and communities. The Bill goes back to the original purpose of academies, which was to share best practice and encourage collaboration in the best interests of our children. Allowing councils to open new schools will ensure not just that more school places are available, but that the places are the best ones for local families and where they are needed. This is a very positive step forward. A focus on school structures alone will not help families, children or teachers.

I support the roll-out of breakfast clubs, which will lead to every child having access to a healthy meal to start the day. As the impact assessment states, clubs will help to boost children’s attendance, attainment, behaviour, wellbeing and their readiness to learn. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for highlighting, through amendment 2, the need for any provision to take into consideration the needs of all children, particularly those with special educational and disability needs. Inclusion is at the heart of this policy, so adjustments will need to be made to provide the food, transport and staffing for pupils in both mainstream and specialist provision. I also support new clause 1 and the auto-enrolment of children for free school meals. The two amendments support the Government’s mission to tackle child poverty.

Unfortunately, special schools fall behind mainstream ones in the offer to parents and pupils outside the conventional school day. Recently, a school close to Hyndburn and Haslingden that serves many of my parents and families has shortened the school day by a whole hour against the wishes of parents. In all honesty, I found the reasoning quite unconvincing. It will cause chaos for families and it would not have been tolerated in a mainstream school. We must do better with SEND schools to ensure that their children get the same school standards and excellent provision that the Government are working to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

Sadly, there are too many cases where children who are classed as home-educated are actually attending the illegal settings that I set out earlier, or are simply not receiving any education at all. In the worst cases, like that of Sara Sharif, we have seen children removed from school in order to prevent detection of abuse. It is only with this Bill that that can be tackled. The introduction of registers for children not in school is crucial in ensuring that children do not fall through the net.

[Gideon Amos]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, in the tragic case of Sara Sharif, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has been pursuing, the murder happened in the school holidays and Sara was already known to social services? There is not much evidence that the parents said they were going to home-educate in the first place. Given all those facts, does the hon. Lady accept that there is actually no correlation in the data between home-educated children and children who are ultimately judged to need a care plan?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I acknowledge the complexity of that case and that the absolutely unacceptable failings before Sara’s death were abject across many organisations. However, she was removed from school partly so that her parents could prevent the detection of the abuse. I have recognised, and will continue to recognise, that that obviously does not speak to the vast majority of people who home-educate their children. However, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, and sometimes that includes regulating the majority, who are decent, honest people.

I want to reassure parents that the new regulations, such as registers for children not in school and the capacity to compel school attendance in certain cases, are not aimed at limiting home education as a whole or about policing how people choose to educate.

--- Later in debate ---

I am also concerned about the excessive reporting requirements for the register—other than the reference to ice creams. While basic information is useful for future planning, proposed new section 463C(1)(e) goes much further, requiring the details of all individuals involved and a full list of all activities. That not only places an unrealistic burden on families, but is impractical for local authorities to manage. If we break down what is being asked for, it would mean that parents must report a neighbour who teaches their child to cook or sew and a local farmer who introduces their children to the environment through hands-on experiences, as well as swimming lessons, museum visits and even regular nature outings with other home-educating families.

[Gideon Amos]

In that vein, does my hon. Friend accept that, as I mentioned, grandparents reading to their grandchildren could be considered as providing home education and should be inspected and reported on, and vital home education groups providing services free of charge could be driven out of business by the scale and weight of reporting they will have to provide?

[Vikki Slade]

I think a lot of people who do not know anything about home education miss the fact that there is a whole community of home educators, and home-educated children spend plenty of time with their peers, but they are just different peers—others who prefer to have their education outside a school environment—and there is a risk of such organisations being driven underground or lost altogether.

Under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, parents already have a duty to ensure that their child receives a suitable education, whether through school or otherwise, and local authorities can already conduct informal inquires and issue school attendance orders if they believe a child is not receiving an appropriate education, so this is simply overkill. A formal register would help to ensure accountability, but this is overreach. My amendment 221 proposes a more practical solution of requiring only those who provide more than six hours per week of education or activity to be included in the register. That strikes a reasonable balance by ensuring that key educators are identified without overwhelming families or local authorities.

While there are genuine safeguarding concerns, local authorities already have the power to intervene under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. The Victoria Climbié Foundation stated that the provision proposed in the Bill would have done nothing to help Sara Sharif because the local authority had already decided that the child was not at risk.

Future Skills Programmes: Universities

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ed Davey]

I am very happy to have that sign of support from the Government Benches already; we are making progress.

After the navigate and explore phases, the final stage of the future skills programme for third-year undergraduates is called apply. Students take stock of what they have learned with the nine skills, and refine and tailor their learning of future skills towards their careers. The apply stage of future skills is being piloted, tested and finalised with some students as we speak, with a full-year roll-out for all third-year Kingston students from September 2025.

I hope that that quite long description of Kingston University’s future skills helps the Minister and others to see that it is a well-thought through, properly researched and piloted programme, and it is happening. There is lot that Ministers and their officials can come and see for themselves, so I repeat my invite. If what I have said so far has not convinced the Minister—I find that hard to believe—here is another major argument. Big UK and international businesses, brands and organisations are coming to Kingston University because they love future skills.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the UK is to get the growth it needs from the new Tata Agratas gigafactory in Somerset, the University Centre Somerset in my constituency needs support from the Government to prepare the 4,000 new workers with the skills they need before they arrive?

[Ed Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a real champion for his university and the students there.

My hon. Friend backs up my point that major businesses are loving the future skills programme at Kingston. The home-grown talent and skills are what employers actually need. I am talking about the likes of IBM, Adobe, Deloitte Digital, John Lewis, Formula 1, and Salutem Care and Education, to name but a few. Public sector managers are also coming to Kingston for the programme, from the NHS to the Met police and the Civil Aviation Authority. They are helping to shape the future skills curriculum, to innovate and to identify talent. I am sure that the Minister will be unsurprised at the excited interest in the AI element of future skills, where Kingston is linking digital competency with an understanding of the human aspects of exploiting AI—the added value of being a human, if you like.

Another reason why I would like the Minister to visit soon is that the idea from Kingston University is already exciting interest from around the world. I fear that if someone in the Department for Education does not run with it now—frankly, this year—it will be yet another example of a great British innovation that is developed here but exploited elsewhere, because there has been interest from Korea and Singapore already. Education and political leaders in Korea and Singapore are engaging. Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, ranked 15th globally, is conducting research through its prestigious Centre for Cross Economy. It is speaking to thousands of businesses in the same way that Kingston University did in the UK, but Nanyang has far more resources and it is working at speed. But Kingston University is smart: it is partnering with Nanyang to explore international and business skills from perspectives in the east. With Korea and Singapore at the cutting edge of digital and AI innovation, the partnerships that Kingston is building have huge potential. That is just another aspect of the present I am bringing to the Government today.

I should perhaps declare another constituency interest. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who is in his place, I represent more British Koreans than any other Member. As trade Minister between 2010 and 2012, I helped to push the EU-Korea free trade agreement, which had a major impact on international trade discussions at the time. If only we could resurrect such trade moments now.

I would like to quote some students who have been living the future skills programme, and then I have a few more asks of the Minister. First, Abdurrahman, a computer science student, said:

“Taking part in the Future Skills programme has helped me understand just how important and necessary these skills are for everyone to progress in their chosen career pathways. From simulating how to talk to employers in industry to prototyping a start-up company, it’s brought to life how to use these skills in an employment or business setting.”

Paulina, a forensic psychology student, said:

“Future Skills has been integrated so well into my different modules and all my different modules really highlight the importance of these skills. It has reignited the passion I came to university with, by enabling me to reflect on why I started my forensic psychology course and giving me a deeper insight into the career I want in the future.”

Two Kingston University students, Amber and Rahman, are in the Public Gallery listening to the debate. They would be pleased and excited to talk to the Minister, or indeed other hon. Members, about their experience of the future skills programme after the debate. This is a full-on lobbying exercise.

I will turn to my final asks of the Minister and Department. The main ask remains: please visit. Please engage soon. I invite the Minister to ask herself, “Is this a present? Is this an idea we can accept and get behind?” If she wants to get properly behind it, just a bit of cash would really help Kingston University to take it forward. So far, it has been funded by a combination of philanthropic support from the fabulous Mohn Westlake Foundation and the university itself. The Mohn Westlake Foundation has a commitment to making education accessible to the most disadvantaged students, and I put on record my thanks. I hope that is another reason why the Minister and the team at DFE will want to look at future skills at Kingston University: the role that it can play in social mobility, social justice and equal opportunity.

I have some final suggestions for things that the Minister might consider when the team visits Kingston University—I hope she noticed the “when”. First, is there a way for the Government to help even more businesses to engage with Kingston University on future skills, perhaps by using the apprenticeship levy or the existing UK Research and Innovation budget? Secondly, will the Government help Kingston University as it continues to evaluate this approach and secure a long-term evidence base that can be shared with other higher education institutions? I am talking about something like a small research and development grant, which might cost as little as £500,000 over the next five years. Thirdly, will the Minister consider making a small innovation grant to enable a pilot expansion of the future skills programme into a secondary school or, indeed, another university? This approach could be taken down into secondary education, and it must surely be tried in other universities. Kingston has already identified potential partners in secondary and tertiary education, so deploying this idea elsewhere really will not cost much. It would be great to trial it with others.

Fourthly, will the Minister request that the Office for Students fund some competitions to support others in higher education that might wish to consider developing and rolling out their own version of Kingston’s future skills?

Finally, perhaps after a visit to Kingston University, which I know is going to happen, will the Minister and her team join me in the House of Commons on 18 June, when Kingston University will be launching its research with Nanyang to leading UK and international businesses, policymakers, academics and students? [Interruption.] That is 18 June—I see that the Minister is writing that down. I am sure that the Minister will see this idea as a very special present, and I want her to enjoy it with some amazing students and businesses. I thank you, Sir Desmond, and the Minister; I hope that she is as excited by the future skills programme as I am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. No one is too young to learn a skill. Skills should be learned throughout a child’s educational journey, and they should begin at home.

Higher technical qualifications and universities go hand in hand in developing essential skills for the future for learners from all backgrounds. HTQs have been introduced to champion the quality available at levels 4 and 5, with qualifications that have been independently approved as providing the skills that employers need in specific occupations. They are helping to open up new opportunities for young people and are enabling adults to get the benefit of a university education.

For example, Tarza undertook a level 5 HTQ in healthcare practice at Newcastle College university centre, and is now at the University of Sunderland completing her adult nursing bachelor’s. The HTQ at the university centre gave her the clinical skills she needed and allowed her to learn as a mature student, despite being out of education for so long beforehand. That is one example of many. The Government’s support for the future skills programmes at universities is a comprehensive and forward-thinking strategy designed to meet the evolving needs of the economy and society.

[Gideon Amos]

Where a major international investor is coming into the country—such as Tata, where 4,000 new employees will be needed—does the DFE support colleges and universities to set up the new apprenticeship and training programmes that they need in preparation for that massive international investment?