Educational Attainment of Boys

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. As the Chair of the Education Committee, I want to see every child and young person engaged in learning throughout their time in education, and helped to find their individual interests and passions, whether they are academic, vocational or a mix of both, and to have built a strong foundation on which they can thrive beyond their time in education and into adulthood.

In their work, my Committee and its predecessor Committee have heard about the many and varied differences between groups of children and young people and the need to do more to close those gaps in participation and attainment. Our immediate predecessor Committee launched an inquiry on the topic of the educational attainment of boys, but the calling of the snap general election last summer meant that the Committee never met to discuss the evidence received from stakeholders. I have drawn on that evidence in preparing for this debate.

The Association of School and College Leaders is clear that it is important not to generalise about boys’ educational engagement and attainment. Many boys achieve well in education, demonstrating good engagement and achieving qualifications that allow them to move on to the next stage of their education, or into an apprenticeship or their first job. However, there are particular groups of boys who perform less well than similar groups of girls. Digging into and understanding this detail is an important part of addressing those disparities.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am fascinated by what I am hearing today. I met Tony Bury, my Bath constituent, who is working with the Centre for Social Justice on improving outcomes for boys—I encourage everybody who is interested in this issue to read its latest report, “Lost Boys”. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a national strategy to address the underachievement of some boys?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. To reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has said, I believe there is a need for a strategic approach to this issue, but as I will talk about later, my Committee is looking at inclusive education and how we can make changes in the system that help schools to respond in a more defined way to the needs of individual children. I believe that, through some of those techniques, we can create an education system that works for everybody.

In particular, when we think about the groups of boys who do not thrive so well in education, we know that white British boys, black Caribbean boys and mixed white and black Caribbean boys eligible for free school meals have particularly low levels of attainment, as do those from Gypsy or Roma backgrounds or Travellers of Irish heritage. Differences between girls and boys emerge in the early years and pre-school phase and continue right through to higher education. There is a difference in speech and oral language development between boys and girls from the earliest years, which is reflected in a gender gap in phonics performance in year 1. With the exception of maths, girls outperform boys at key stages 1 and 2, particularly in reading and writing. At the end of reception year, aged around five, three quarters of girls have a good level of development, while less than two thirds of boys do.

At key stage 4, girls outperform boys on all of the headline Department for Education measures. Some 68% of girls in state-funded schools achieve both English and Maths GCSEs at grade 4 or above, which is 5% higher than the rate for boys. Progression to higher education at the age of 19 is higher for young women than it is for young men, and among those who do take up a place at university, young men have higher rates of drop-out than young women. However, despite entering the workforce with lower qualifications than women on average, men still earn more on average, with the gender pay gap growing over time. As such, this is an area of policy that requires complex and nuanced consideration.

Is the difference between girls’ and boys’ attainment due to a continued improvement over many years in the attainment and engagement of girls, challenges for specific groups of boys, or a mixture of both, and what can and should be done to address those disparities? The evidence that the Select Committee has received reveals different views on what steps should be taken to address these persistent differences throughout school and university. One viewpoint is that taking steps to improve engagement and attainment for every pupil will naturally help improve the engagement and attainment of those groups of boys demonstrating the biggest gender gap. The OECD report, “Gender, Education and Skills: The Persistence of Gender Gaps in Education and Skills”, published in 2023, stated that

“gender disparities in school performance and the resultant career choices do not stem from innate differences in aptitude but rather from students’ attitudes towards learning and their behaviour in school, from how they choose to spend their leisure time, and from the confidence they have—or do not have—in their abilities as students.”

Reading ability is a key cornerstone of many other aspects of education, and the seemingly continual decrease in the proportion of boys reading for pleasure over the years is one important issue to tackle. I commend BookTrust on the work it is doing with children’s laureate Frank Cottrell-Boyce to promote the importance and the joy of reading for pleasure, and to encourage and support more children to find their love of books.

We know that screentime and the use of smartphones are having profound impacts on children and young people from an increasingly young age. Among the many harms that children are exposed to as a consequence of their engagement online, teachers, parents and young people themselves report exposure to toxic masculinity. We also know that excessive screentime harms young people’s sleep, reduces their attention span and affects their ability to concentrate. These are complex and difficult areas, but I am clear that urgent action is needed to protect children from online harms, and that taking steps to promote positive role models and challenge unacceptable monocultures on social media should be a priority.

There is also a big difference in the proportions of male and female teachers, particularly in primary schools. It is important that we continue to support and encourage more men to teach younger children. Evidence to the Select Committee suggests that a quarter of all state-funded primary schools do not have a single male classroom teacher. It is clearly important that we have women role models to encourage participation and engagement among girls, particularly in STEM subjects, but the same applies to boys seeing male teachers in the classroom and in other educational roles, such as learning support assistants.

There is a difference between boys and girls in the presentation and diagnosis of special educational needs and disabilities, and our work on the Education Select Committee is clear about both the failures of the current SEND system—described as “lose, lose, lose” by the last Conservative Secretary of State for Education—and the need to drive early identification of need, instead of allowing children to go unsupported in education.

Education, health and care plans are more than twice as prevalent for boys as for girls—as of the beginning of this year, 23% of boys were identified with SEN, compared with 13% of girls. Too many children struggle with dyslexia. The delays for assessing pupils with social, emotional and mental health issues are unacceptable, and ADHD is significantly underdiagnosed across the country.

My Committee has been looking in detail at SEND for several months now, and we will shortly publish our report. Our work has included visits to a number of schools and college settings that are already delivering inclusive practice for SEND. It seems clear that some of the techniques that can be used to ensure that every child’s needs are met in school would also deliver benefits specifically for boys who are underachieving. For example, at Aylsham high school in Norfolk, which we were pleased to visit just a couple of weeks ago, and at West Credit secondary school in Ontario, we saw vocational subjects, such as construction skills, horticulture and food production, on offer alongside academic subjects in a way that helped to secure the interest and engagement of a wide range of pupils.

We know that the previous Government’s changes to the curriculum have resulted in a sharp decline in the availability of some creative subjects and sport in our schools. We all appreciate the importance in education of people finding the things that they love to do and can succeed at, which can sustain their motivation to participate in some aspects of education that are more challenging. It is important that we have an education system that can deliver that for every child.

Every Member of this House will remember that special teacher who sparked a particular interest in a field of study, or a passion for an area that particularly enthused and engaged us. For me, it was my former headteacher, Tony Richardson of Ormskirk grammar school, which confusingly was actually a comprehensive school. He was my English teacher, and he taught me about debating and literature and took a close interest, and it made a huge difference. Tackling the recruitment and retention crisis in teaching, and helping teachers to commit to stay for the long term, also allows children to have that special relationship with staff, which is important.

This week, my Committee heard from Professor Becky Francis, who is leading the Government’s curriculum and assessment review. Professor Francis is clear on the importance and challenge of ensuring that every pupil, no matter their background, can find themselves in the curriculum they are taught across a wide range of subjects. Whether it is careful tracking of pupils, a rich and varied curriculum, exciting trips, making every lesson engaging, making sure there are opportunities to secure content that might not have been fully grasped on the first attempt, teachers whose enthusiasm and knowledge are matched by their pedagogical skills, improved teacher training, time for continuing professional development, strong leadership from school leaders, or the improved engagement of parents and carers, it will all help every child to achieve their full potential. That includes the groups of boys who are underperforming compared with their peers.

We must build an education system in which every child can thrive. That requires an honest acknowledgment of the areas in which our system is currently failing, including for some groups of boys; a forensic understanding of the reasons why; and the courage to deliver reform that can make a difference. This is a vitally important issue, and it is one in which my Committee will continue to maintain a close interest.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Early Years Providers: Government Support

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate.

I want by paying tribute to early years providers across the country. The early years sector runs on a powerhouse of dedicated, skilled professionals, the vast majority of them women, who spend every day making a difference to the lives of children. As I pay tribute to early years professionals, I want to recognise the extraordinary work of Laura McFarlane, who sadly died this week. Laura dedicated the whole of her 40-year career to improving the lives of children, most recently as the director of the Lambeth early action partnership, known as LEAP, a 10-year national lottery-funded programme of early years support, and as director of the Liz Atkinson Children’s Centre just outside my constituency. LEAP made a difference to the lives of countless babies and young children in Lambeth, thanks to Laura’s leadership, vision and drive. She will be very much missed. Her legacy is immense.

The early years of a child’s life are vital. They offer a unique opportunity to lay the foundations for learning and development and for good physical and mental health, and to close the disadvantage gap. There is a wide variety of early years providers, including childminders, not-for-profit and social enterprises, private companies, school-based nurseries and maintained nurseries. That makes early years policy more complex than some other areas of education policy, and it also creates challenges, particularly in seeking to secure availability, consistency and quality in every area of the country.

The debate about early years providers can sometimes fall into a false dichotomy between childcare and early education. I have always been clear that these are two sides of the same coin: what is childcare for parents is early years education for children. We want every child to have the highest-quality early years education in whatever setting they are cared for.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that although expanding nursery-based provision in schools is unquestionably laudable in improving access to childcare, we must guard against inadvertently passing on to primary school teachers the responsibility for teaching basic life skills that could and should have been nurtured earlier, thereby stretching resources and risking the lowering of standards? Perhaps the Minister could outline what steps his Department is taking to correct the funding and support imbalance so that childminders who provide vital individualised care are not sidelined.

[Helen Hayes]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s intervention, that is exactly what the Government are trying to do in establishing school-based nurseries: to ensure that across the country there are a range of settings that support children’s development so they arrive at school in reception year ready to learn.

I welcome the Government’s expansion of early years provision through the roll-out of funded hours and the delivery of 3,000 new school-based nurseries. That will make a huge difference to families, giving parents the option to return to work and helping with the costs of childcare, which under the previous Government resulted in many families spending more on childcare than on their rent or mortgage and, for the first time in decades, saw women leaving the workforce because the costs of staying in work were simply unviable.

In delivering the roll-out, it is important that the Government pay close attention to the financial resilience of early years providers. Many providers have been flagging for a long time the fact that the hourly rate they have been paid does not match the costs of delivering funded hours. There have also been inconsistences in the way local authorities pass on the Government subsidy. The previous Government’s funding model created distortions in the costs of childcare, with parents of the youngest children paying very high rates to cross-subsidise the costs of providing underfunded funded hours for three and four-year-olds. Nurseries have also experienced rising costs in relation to energy, food and insurance, and they are also now having to adjust to increased employer national insurance contributions and the increase in the national minimum wage.

Sadly, we have seen far too many early years settings close in recent years because they cannot make their business model work. It is important that the Government pay careful attention to the financial resilience of the sector and take steps to ensure that nurseries do not close due to high costs and inadequate rates of funding.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the eye-watering cost of nursery care for parents. Parents in my constituency tell me that, like me, they spend thousands upon thousands a month, when in other countries it costs just hundreds of pounds a month. One of the most recent contributing factors is the rise in national insurance contributions, which for me increased nursery fees by 10%. Does the hon. Lady regret the Government not accepting Lib Dem amendments to exempt nurseries from the extra charges?

[Helen Hayes]

I do not regret the Government not accepting Liberal Democrat amendments that are not accompanied by any means of plugging the funding gap that would be left by the additional commitments they ask the Government to make, but it is important that the Government continually look at the resilience and sustainability of the early years sector in the light of what are undoubtedly additional costs and challenges that the sector is having to bear. That will be important for the delivery of the roll-out and for provision across the country.

Early years practitioners do such important work. We trust our most precious family members into their care, and they have the capacity to make an enormous difference. Yet there is a recruitment crisis in the early years. We do not value early education and childcare enough, staff are paid far too little, and there are insufficient opportunities to gain specialist qualifications and to progress. I visited the Sheringham nursery and children’s centre in east London, which has a large sign at the gate that reads “Building Brains Here”. The nursery’s work is just that: laying the foundations for the rest of a child’s life. We must find the ways to value early years staff more, promote the early years as a rewarding and vital vocation, and ensure that staff are appropriately paid, with good opportunities for progression.

In that context, I welcome the Government’s newly launched strategy to give every child the “best start in life”, and the commitment to expand the number of stronger practice hubs, such as Sheringham nursery school and children’s centre, which play such an important role in strengthening good practice across the area in which they sit, and to incentivise early years practitioners to work in areas of deprivation where their expertise is so important.

Childminders are often overlooked in the debate about childcare and early years education, but they are a vital part of the landscape of care and education for many families. They play a critical role in the lives of the children in their care and they are the option of choice for many parents and carers, particularly for very young children. The number of Ofsted-registered childminders has been declining for several years, and many earn unacceptably low levels of income.

I welcome the steps the Government are taking in the new strategy to try to stabilise the income of childminders and encourage childminding as a profession, as well as promote innovations in childminding practice, which would help childminders to work together across a local area and in partnership with schools. I also wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment to expand Best Start family hubs, building on the success of the previous Labour Government’s Sure Start programme, the proud achievement of my late predecessor Dame Tessa Jowell.

Sure Start played a vital role in supporting the landscape of childcare, often with a nursery on site plus supporting networks of childminders in a local area, offering them training and development, and building relationships with parents. For the most vulnerable and disadvantaged parents, more is needed than simply making a child place available. Sure Start centres, by offering play-and-stay sessions and parenting classes, built relationships of trust with parents, boosted their confidence and often acted as the gateway to taking up a nursery place, which is beneficial for children, and to re-engaging with the labour market and education for parents. Best Start family hubs are badly needed, and I hope they will play a similar role.

I also welcome the focus in the strategy on the quality of early years provision and inclusion. It is an unacceptable reality that the parents who find it hardest to find childcare places are the parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and that approaches to SEND inclusion vary widely across early years providers, which is not acceptable. I welcome the attention the Government are giving to that issue.

Finally, I want to draw attention again to the role of maintained nursery schools within the landscape of early years providers. Maintained nurseries are unique in being constituted as schools and required to employ a headteacher and qualified teaching staff, but they are excluded from the schools funding formula. Their funding has been dramatically eroded relative to their costs in recent years. Maintained nurseries are often beacons of good practice located in areas of deprivation, and are inclusive settings with an expertise in SEND.

The Minister will know that many maintained nursery schools have closed and many that remain are operating with unsustainable financial deficits. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that the response of the Government to my inquiries on this topic, which is largely to push responsibility to local authorities, simply is not sufficient when local authorities are not fully funded to support maintained nursery schools. It cannot be right that, as the Government set out an ambitious new strategy for early years, some of the institutions with the greatest levels of expertise and the most successful track records of delivery are being left effectively to wither on the vine.

I call on the Minister to set out a plan for maintained nurseries, to reform their funding model and ensure their long-term sustainability. The Education Committee, which I chair, will turn attention to the early years in the coming months, and I look forward to making our contribution to scrutinising the Government’s work in this vital sector that makes such a difference.

Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate.

The use of generative artificial intelligence in education is a critical challenge of our time. As parliamentarians, we bear the responsibility for ensuring that this new technology is harnessed to support teachers and examining bodies and to enhance learning, while safeguarding our children’s intellectual and emotional growth and not undermining the critical skills and values they need for the future.

Although generative AI presents some distinct challenges, it sits within a suite of technology-related issues that have all significantly changed the landscape in which our children are growing up and being educated, including the use of smartphones and other devices and engagement with social media. Every generation of parents and teachers has to support children and young people to navigate something that they did not have to contend with in their own childhood—and so it is for our generation. We must understand the power and potential of AI and other technologies, and we must understand in detail the risks and threats. We must also give our teachers and school leaders, our children and young people the tools they need to harness its potential with good ethical and critical thinking, while safeguarding their wellbeing.

Generative AI holds immense promise across a range of applications in our schools. There are important potential applications in the context of rising teacher workloads, which it is vital to address if we are to improve the recruitment and retention of teachers in our schools; but the use of AI for lesson planning, assessment and marking cannot be a substitute for subject experts who work in person with their students, providing tailored teaching to meet the needs of individuals in the classroom.

It is important that older pupils have a good understanding of the benefits, weaknesses and threats of emerging technologies such as generative AI. At its best, generative AI offers the potential to accurately summarise lengthy and complex technical texts in a way that is easy for a layperson to understand, or to generate computer code to achieve much more than an experienced computer scientist could over a period of months. There are potential applications for children with special educational needs and disabilities, too.

However, the promise of AI comes with potential peril. Over-reliance on generative AI risks eroding children’s critical thinking and independent learning. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology warns that AI tools, if misused, can reduce students to passive recipients of unreliable, biased and potentially hallucinated pre-generated content, undermining the cognitive struggle essential for deep learning. Studies suggest that excessive dependence on AI for problem solving can weaken analytical skills, as students bypass the iterative process of reasoning and reflection. The ability to assess ideas critically for their origin and value could be fundamentally affected. That is particularly concerning for subjects requiring interpretive or creative thought, where AI’s efficiency may shortcut the development of original ideas. If children lean too heavily on AI, we risk nurturing a generation skilled at consuming information, but less adept at questioning, critiquing or innovating.

Beyond our schools and classrooms, generative AI has potential in aiding and assisting exam boards in the accurate and fair assessment of public examinations and becoming an invaluable tool in our universities and workplaces. However, alongside the potential benefits, we are already seeing significant harms that AI can inflict through the generating of convincing altered deepfake images and their use in the appalling bullying and exploitation of some children and young people.

That concern is amplified within the broader context of screen time. Our predecessor Education Committee’s inquiry into screen time last year revealed a 52% surge in children’s screen use from 2020 to 2022, linked to declines in attention, sleep quality and mental wellbeing. Generative AI, which is often accessed via screens, must be integrated thoughtfully to avoid exacerbating those trends. Vulnerable children, those facing socioeconomic hardship, neurodiversity or mental health challenges, are particularly at risk. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology briefing on AI and wellbeing notes that those students may benefit most from AI’s accessibility, but they are also most susceptible to its potential harms, such as reduced agency or exposure to inappropriate content.

We are already seeing the profound impact of AI in education, from schools rethinking their approach to homework to universities reverting to traditional in-person exams. Sam Illingworth of Edinburgh Napier University has argued that we need to think about how we can tailor the assessment of students and provide better and more creative support for their learning, and work to that end is ongoing in universities. These shifts may signal that we need a more fundamental re-evaluation of how we design learning and assessment in this new technological era.

What must be done? First and foremost, the Department for Education must provide clear and robust guidance on the ethical use of generative AI in schools. Our predecessor Committee rightly called for urgent legislation to regulate AI, warning that the pace of technological advancement risks outstripping our ability to legislate effectively, with potentially harmful consequences for children. It is imperative that AI developers are held accountable for how children’s data is used, particularly where those children are below the digital age of consent. Indeed, there are strong arguments, which I support, for increasing the digital age of consent from 13 to 16. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure transparency in AI-generated content, prevent over-reliance on automated tools and preserve essential skills such as critical thinking.

Secondly, my Committee has recently heard about the importance of prioritising digital literacy across the board. Teachers, students and parents need training to understand AI’s mechanics, biases and limitations. An informed educator can guide students to use AI as a tool for exploration, not a crutch for answers.

Finally, we must champion the irreplaceable value of human connection. No algorithm can replicate a teacher’s empathy, a student’s curiosity or the spark of collaborative discovery. AI must be used to enhance those relationships, not to supplant them.

The choices we make today will shape the minds of tomorrow. If we fail to balance AI’s potential with its risks, if we fail to regulate appropriately, if we fail to fully understand this technology and the opportunities and risks it presents, we may compromise the critical thinking skills that define an educated society and we may undermine the values that we seek to promote. Let us act decisively to harness generative AI as a servant of learning, not its master.

Department for Education

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to address the House on the Department for Education’s main estimate for 2025-26. I thank the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate this afternoon; it is an important opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s spending plans, which must deliver for every child, young person and family. Education is the bedrock of opportunity, social mobility and economic growth.

The Government inherited a situation in which almost every aspect of the Department for Education’s areas of responsibility faced severe challenges, from the financial pressures on early years providers to the erosion of school budgets and teacher pay, the crisis in the special educational needs and disabilities system, underfunding of further education and skills and a total reset needed in children’s social care.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is giving a really important speech on a subject that is very dear to my heart, as everyone in the House knows. Will she add to her list the huge issues that we inherited with school buildings? As a former teacher—I have mentioned that a few times—I know that the learning environment is really important. We inherited a real issue with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, for example, but there have also been other issues, such as those faced by Sir Frederick Gibberd college in my constituency.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the state of the school estate.

The final area of challenge is that many universities face a risk of insolvency. At the heart of all the Department’s responsibilities are individual children and young people who need and are entitled to the best possible start in life, secure foundations, a great education and every opportunity to grow into active citizens with successful careers and a good quality of life. The challenges in our education and social care systems can be seen in the outcomes for children and young people, with rising numbers of children not meeting the early learning goals when they start school, growing disadvantage gaps at all stages of education, very poor outcomes for care-experienced young people, rising levels of school absence and far too many children with special educational needs and disabilities not receiving the support that they need to thrive in education.

I will speak to the estimates across five key spending areas—SEND, children’s social care, early years, skills, and higher education—drawing on the Education Committee’s ongoing inquiries to ensure that these funds meet the urgent needs of our communities. On special educational needs and disabilities, the main estimate reflects the Government’s recognition of the challenges, with an immediate increase in high needs revenue funding of more than £1 billion. Capital spending for high needs provision sees a 138% uplift, from £310 million to £740 million, to create new school places.

During the inquiry, my Committee has heard powerful testimony from families and educators about the crisis in the SEND system, with witnesses calling for significant and far-reaching reform to ensure that funds translate into effective delivery for children. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that rising SEND costs could absorb much of the mainstream school budget uplift, and that capital investment, while significant, may not meet growing demand. The forthcoming schools White Paper promised this autumn must set out bold reforms, with resources made available to ensure that they can be implemented successfully. Our inquiry report will set out recommendations to the Government for reform of the SEND system, and I hope that the Government will make time to take full account of our work. I urge the Minister to confirm a timescale for those reforms, informed by our Committee’s evidence.

Our children’s social care inquiry has exposed acute funding pressures, with local authorities forced to prioritise crisis interventions over preventive support due to a £1.2 billion cut in early intervention spending since 2012. The spending review introduces a £555 million transformation fund over three years, including £75 million in 2025-26 and £270 million for a new children’s social care prevention grant. That is a vital step towards effective reform.

The additional £560 million for children’s homes and foster care placements is also welcome. However, the independent review of children’s social care estimated a need for an additional £2.6 billion of funding over four years. My Committee’s work underscores the urgency of investing in early intervention to reduce the number of children being taken into care and to improve outcomes.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am really grateful for the work of the Education Committee, which is excellently chaired by my hon. Friend. Does she agree that cutting the value of grants to families from the adoption and special guardianship support fund will put more pressure on children’s social care and leave children without the vital support they need?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important work in this area. I agree that the cuts made to the adoption and special guardianship support fund have caused great alarm across the adoption, special guardianship and kinship care community. It is important that in reviewing that funding, the Government look at how effective support for adoptive families can be provided across both health and education, and look to give families confidence that the support they rely on and that is needed can be delivered. We know that in the past, adoptive families have not always been able to access the support they need, so I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an urgent and important consideration.

I call on the Government today to provide a clearer analysis of the funding that is needed for children’s social care, as well as plans to bridge the gap between the funding that has been announced to date and the £2.6 billion prescribed by the independent review, so that preventive services that keep families together can be prioritised.

Turning to early years education, the expansion to 30 hours of funded childcare for under-fives from September 2025 is transformative. The main estimate allocates £8.48 billion to the early years block—nearly double the 2023-24 spend—with an additional £1.8 billion in 2025-26. However, the IFS highlights that higher than expected take-up could increase costs by £1 billion annually, and the sector faces a shortfall of 70,000 places and 35,000 staff. The £370 million for 3,000 new nurseries in primary schools is a very positive step, but the Committee has heard concerns about delivery timelines and workforce shortages. Given the rising costs to providers, including minimum wage and national insurance increases, I urge the Minister to clarify how the Department will ensure sufficient capacity and support providers to deliver this ambitious expansion on time. It is also important that the Government give careful consideration to improving quality and consistency in the early years, and to how best to ensure that high-quality early years education maximises the unique opportunity in the first 1,000 days of a child’s life to stop the impacts of disadvantage being embedded for a lifetime.

On skills and further education, the 12.7% increase in the apprenticeships budget to just over £3 billion, alongside £1.2 billion annually by 2028-29 and £625 million for construction skills, signals the Government’s commitment to equipping young people for a changing economy. In our inquiry, however, my Committee heard concerns about the defunding of level 7 apprenticeships, with witnesses including the British Chambers of Commerce warning that it could limit higher-level opportunities and deter participation. The absence of detail on the lifelong learning entitlement in the spending review is also of concern. The forthcoming post-16 skills and education White Paper must provide a unified and comprehensive vision for skills funding for young people and adults. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision on level 7 and to set out how additional funding will be allocated to maximise impact.

Finally, higher education faces significant challenges, with a 13% real-terms cut to direct teaching funding via the strategic priorities grant, which is now more than 80% lower than 2010-11 levels. My Committee has heard evidence of universities closing courses, reducing repairs and maintenance, and facing financial instability. The Office for Students’ 2025 report warns of declining performance, with recovery reliant on optimistic recruitment forecasts. While the modern industrial strategy promises better targeted funding, our universities—which are anchor institutions supporting thousands of jobs in every town and city that has a university—need urgent support. I therefore repeat the sector’s call for a transformation fund to stabilise universities and enable them to deliver the reforms that are necessary to ensure that they meet future skills needs and continue to contribute to economic growth through research and development and the role they play in building international collaboration.

The Education Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department for Education carefully and hold the Government to account, ensuring that these funds deliver for every child and every learner. I urge Ministers to act swiftly on the promised White Papers, engage with our inquiries, and translate investment into meaningful change. Education is our most powerful lever to bring about a fairer, stronger country; let us ensure that it delivers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The education and children’s social care system across the country has been well represented, and we have heard contributions about the challenges in SEND, further education, schools, rural areas and early years. Right hon. and hon. Members have welcomed the expansion of free school meals and the introduction of free breakfast clubs.

I thank the Minister for her response, and join her in paying tribute to all the professionals who work so hard every single day to improve the lives of children and young people across the country. I urge her to work very closely with parents as she brings forward SEND reforms, because at the heart of successful reform of the SEND system is the rebuilding of parents’ trust and confidence. The Education Committee will be robust in its continued scrutiny of the Government.

I say gently to the Conservatives that the problems that they are attacking the Government for not solving within a year are the legacy of their 14 years in power. We are talking about trust and confidence in the SEND system; we would build trust and confidence in this place if there was slightly more honest reflection, humility and thoughtfulness on that point.

I again thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and I look forward to further scrutinising the work of the Government.

Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54(2)).

Windrush Day 2025

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Windrush Day 2025.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate.

On 22 June 1948, HMT Empire Windrush arrived in Tilbury docks from the Caribbean, carrying 1,027 passengers and two stowaways. More than half the passengers came from Jamaica, and there were many from Trinidad, Bermuda and British Guiana. There were other nationalities too, including Polish passengers who had been displaced during the second world war. The passengers were responding to advertisements in local newspapers, including The Gleaner in Jamaica, for jobs in the UK, with an opportunity to travel on the Windrush for £28.

As we mark this 77th anniversary, I want to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Windrush pioneers who have passed away in the last year. They include Windrush passengers Alford Gardner, who I had the privilege of meeting at the 70th anniversary reception in Speaker’s House, and “Big John” Richards. They also include the Windrush pioneers Nadia Cattouse, Eddie Grizzle, Enid Jackson, Claudette Williams, Gerlin Bean, Lord Herman Ouseley—the former chief executive of Lambeth council—Paul Stephenson, Norman Mitchell, Nellie Louise Brown and my constituent Neil Flanigan, a founding member of the West Indian Association of Service Personnel. Their loss is an important reminder of the importance of capturing the stories and oral histories that are part of our national story while there is still time to do so.

In 1948, the UK was desperate for labour to help rebuild the country following the devastation of the second world war, and the passengers on the Windrush brought a wealth of skills. They included dozens of airmen who had volunteered to serve in the Royal Air Force during the war and who had played a hugely significant role in fighting fascism in Europe, including the late Samuel Beaver King—Sam King—who became the first black mayor of Southwark. Windrush passengers from the Caribbean travelled as British citizens as a result of the British Nationality Act 1948, which created a new category of “citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies” for anyone born or naturalised in either the UK or any of the countries subject to colonial rule.

About 200 of the Windrush passengers found temporary accommodation at the Clapham South deep air raid shelter, from where they found their way to the nearest labour exchange, on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton in my constituency, to look for work and permanent accommodation. Many of them found accommodation through Jamaican landlord Gus Leslie, who had bought property in and around Somerleyton Road, and they settled in the area close to what is now called Windrush Square. The Windrush passengers found London still devastated by the war, and they found work in a wide variety of different sectors of the economy, including in construction and on London’s public transport network. It is fitting that one of the London overground lines has now been named the Windrush line.

Of course, many of the passengers came to work in the NHS, which was formally established less than a fortnight after the arrival of the Windrush. King’s College hospital is at the other end of Coldharbour Lane from the site of the labour exchange in my constituency. Members of the Windrush generation have helped to sustain our NHS from its inception, not only in London but right across the country.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for making such a powerful opening speech. Does she recognise the valuable contributions of the Windrush generation staff at King’s College hospital in her constituency and, equally, the valuable contribution—and powerful statue—of Mary Seacole at St Thomas’ hospital, in my constituency, that overlooks this Parliament?

[Helen Hayes]

Of course, in our two boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, the contribution of the Windrush generation is extraordinary. It is demonstrated most powerfully in the statue that my hon. Friend mentions.

The lives of Windrush passengers, and of others from the Caribbean who followed them to Brixton, were captured by commercial photographer Harry Jacobs, who set up shop on Landor Road, close to Brixton town centre, to provide photographic services so that people could send images to their loved ones. Harry’s photos poignantly captured the hopes, dreams and achievements of people in the process of making a new life: a woman in her nurse’s uniform; families dressed in their Sunday best, showing off their prized possessions; and the first image of a new baby or a new spouse.

However, as we remember those stories with affection, our commemorations of Windrush Day must avoid any sentimentality. The contribution of the Windrush pioneers was made in a context of widespread racism, the clearest and ugliest illustration of which was found on signs on the doors of boarding houses—stating “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs”—and which in many situations ran much deeper, often resulting in daily discrimination and humiliation. An egregious example is the appalling and still unaddressed scandal of black children being deemed emotionally subnormal in the 1960s and ’70s and being placed in special schools, where they were denied an education and made to feel inferior.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. She talks about the experience of black children in education, and could I remind her of my constituent, Eric Huntley, whom I serendipitously bumped into at the weekend? He and his wife Jessica, who lived at 141 Coldershaw Road in West Ealing, established the Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications Bookshop back in the 1960s and 1970s. They also established the Black Parents Movement, which was to help children who were stuck in such schools and were not being given the education they were entitled to. Does she agree that we still need to continue that work to make sure that black children in our schools are treated fairly and get the education they deserve?

[Helen Hayes]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents, who, like so many of the Windrush generation, demonstrated their resilience by taking initiatives to circumnavigate the racism to which they were subject. We still live with that racism and discrimination today, and we can never be complacent about that. We must continue to address all the issues that still need to be dealt with.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

In the 1960s and 1970s, lots of young black children were identified as educationally subnormal, and were sent to such schools even though they were not educationally subnormal. Does my hon. Friend believe that their descendants and the people affected by that really need to be given an apology to acknowledge what they experienced during that time?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing on this issue. As I have said, I believe this is an unaddressed issue on which there is still work to do.

In that vein, it is devastating to read the words of John Carpenter, which I have shared before in this House, who travelled on the Windrush aged 22. Speaking in 1998, he said:

“They tell you it is the ‘mother country’, you’re all welcome, you all British. When you come here you realise you’re a foreigner and that’s all there is to it.”

Despite the hardships and injustices they endured, the Windrush passengers and those who followed them settled in the UK and put down roots, using the Pardner Hand community savings scheme to buy property to circumvent the racist landlords, and to establish businesses and churches. Sam King became a postal worker, was elected to Southwark council and became the first black mayor of the borough. It was a very brave achievement since he faced threats from the National Front, which was active in Southwark at that time. Sam was also instrumental in establishing the Notting Hill carnival and the West Indian Gazette. He later established the Windrush Foundation with Arthur Torrington, who still runs it.

In my constituency, the Windrush generation helped to forge the Brixton we know today. In doing so, they made a huge contribution to a community where everyone is welcome, where difference is not feared but celebrated, and where we are not strangers but friends and neighbours. To mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush, talented young people from Brixton designed a beautiful logo, which is based on the pattern of human DNA.

The Windrush generation and subsequent migrants who have come to this country from all over the Commonwealth sparked the emergence of modern multicultural Britain. They are part of us, and part of the UK’s 21st-century DNA. The Windrush generation made an extraordinary and enduring contribution, because the Windrush generation continued to endure—

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Hayes]

Yes.

[Dawn Butler]

On that point about the expats who came over from the Caribbean and what they endured, does my hon. Friend agree that we sometimes fail to recognise the strength and the resilience of the Windrush generation, which often gets overlooked?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for intervening and helping me make sense of a sentence in my notes that did not quite work.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the Windrush generation made an extraordinary and enduring contribution, and showed immense resilience, but they continued to endure racism and injustice. In 2018, journalist Amelia Gentleman exposed what became known as the Windrush scandal—the systematic denial of citizenship rights to British citizens who had come to the UK from across the Commonwealth in the decades after the second world war, which saw them deported or denied entry to the UK, unable to work or claim their pension, and refused healthcare and housing.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a fantastic speech, and for securing this debate. It does seem sometimes quite unfashionable in this day and age to look at the discrimination that that community has endured for so many decades, and not to see it as structural racism. In other words, there is a thread from colonialism, empire and slavery all the way through to Windrush and what we still experience to this day. Would she comment on that issue?

[Helen Hayes]

I will come on to the wider implications of the scandal, which I think speak to the issue my hon. Friend highlights.

The Windrush scandal was the most egregious breach of trust. The Windrush compensation scheme was poorly set up by the previous Government, justice has been far too slow and, sadly, many victims of the scandal have died still waiting for redress. It was very moving to attend, with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Windrush national vigil on Windrush Square on 6 April, led by Bishop Dr Desmond Jaddoo, to remember the victims.

A comparative analysis by King’s College London of the compensation scheme compared with other redress schemes, including the Post Office Horizon scheme and the infected blood scandal scheme, has demonstrated that the Windrush compensation scheme has a much lower success rate for applicants, more complex initial eligibility requirements, a higher required standard of proof, an inaccessible application process, an absence of funding for independent legal representation for applicants, decision making that lacks independence, and a process that is inaccessible. It is vital that changes are made so that victims of the Windrush scandal can have confidence in the compensation scheme.

That is important because the impacts of the scandal are experienced not only by the victims themselves, but across the Windrush generation as a whole and for subsequent generations, who live with the emotional weight and the economic cost of what their loved ones have endured, and whose trust in British institutions and the Government has been fractured as a consequence.

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

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. Does she share not just my tribute to Amelia Gentleman for the work she did to uncover what happened with the Windrush scandal, as well as people like Colin McFarlane and the Justice 4 Windrush Generation campaign, but my horror at the evidence we have seen this week that those given compensation to date have not actually been given the same amounts as those in other comparable scandals? Does she agree that we must right that wrong from this place?

[Helen Hayes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is a question of trust and a question of basic fairness. There cannot be any excuse for a lack of clarity across compensation schemes dealing with similar structural injustices for which the state is responsible.

There is more work to do to ensure that such a scandal can never happen again. This means reflecting on the causes of the Windrush scandal in future policy and legislative decisions. For example, we must make sure that the introduction of e-visas allows no scope for anyone who is legitimately in the UK to be wrongly denied their status because they cannot access a document online.

It also means ensuring that we understand our own past. The Government have commissioned Professor Becky Francis to undertake the curriculum and assessment review, and I hope she will be thinking about how subjects such as history and geography can be taught through the prism of an accurate understanding of our past, so that through a prism of migration to our country, whether, like me, people come from a town with a Viking name and a Norman church or whether their family arrived in the UK in more recent times, they can locate their own story in our history and understand that there is no us and them. We are a nation that has always been formed and sustained by people who have come from overseas to make their home on these islands.

And it means resourcing properly the organisations that are the custodians of history, including the National Windrush Museum, and the Black Cultural Archives in my constituency. The BCA was established in 1981 by Len Garrison, who had come to the UK from Jamaica as a child in 1954 and became a great educationalist in our city. The BCA has an extensive archive documenting the history of black people in the UK, from the African-Roman emperor stationed at Hadrian’s wall, Septimius Severus, to black Georgians, the Windrush generation and much, much more. It is a national resource that is critical to our understanding as a society and vital for the sense of place and belonging for many black British people. The BCA needs stable core funding from the Government commensurate with its national role to enable it to do the work of outreach and interpretation, and to secure it for the long term. I mention very briefly the important and ambitious campaign led by Patrick Vernon to retrieve the anchor of the Empire Windrush from its current resting place in the Mediterranean sea, so that it can be restored as a memorial and as a tool for the education of younger generations.

In preparing for this debate, I have been in touch with many people who have campaigned and continue to campaign for Windrush justice. They have differing views about the role of celebration on Windrush Day. I know there are some who are concerned that celebration undermines the fight for justice and that they cannot celebrate until justice has been done, and I understand that perspective, but there are others who passionately believe that assertively celebrating the Windrush generation and all they have contributed and achieved, giving visibility to the community, is a part of the fight for justice. That celebration sustains their campaigning and it is also important for health and wellbeing. I am looking forward to joining the Brixton Immortals Domino club celebrations on Saturday and the Big Caribbean Lunch on Sunday, organised by Ros Griffiths, both to be held on Windrush Square in my constituency.

Finally, I want to consider the wider importance of fully addressing the Windrush scandal and all its implications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) highlighted, the Windrush scandal happened as a consequence of structural injustices and it happened as a consequence of our history. Windrush must not be compartmentalised, because if we do that we cannot be sure that such a scandal will not be repeated. I mentioned the extraordinary role of members of the Windrush generation and their descendants in our NHS, which continues to this day. Our NHS today, in King’s College hospital in my constituency, is also sustained by nurses from the Philippines and south India, who were asked to come by our hospitals because we needed their skills in our healthcare system. We cannot rest until we are sure that they, or any other group, will not face the horrific injustice of discrimination based on racism and ignorance that is embedded in law and policy.

I welcome very much the personal commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister to Windrush justice. I was pleased to attend the Windrush summit last week at the Home Office. It is a credit to the approach my hon. Friend has taken and the work she has done that so many people who have campaigned for Windrush justice felt able to attend an event in the Department that had done them such wrong. I know that many of the attendees would not have thought that possible just a few months ago. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to implementing all the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ lessons learned review and the imminent appointment of a Windrush commissioner. I thank her for all the work she is doing to listen, engage and take meaningful steps to restore trust and confidence. I know that she understands that there is much more still to do, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on behalf of my constituents to secure the depth and breadth of the change we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard from many different areas of our country—from Yorkshire, Merseyside, Manchester, East Anglia and the west midlands—and we have of course had great representation from north and especially south London. We have had powerful contributions paying tribute, reflecting thoughtfully on the complexity of our history, and speaking about the injustices that the Windrush generation have endured.

Although this has been a very consensual debate, it was disappointing that there was so little recognition from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), of the faults of the Windrush compensation scheme. For many of my constituents, engaging with the scheme has truly been a nightmare, because the threshold of proof was so high and the process so complicated. I thank the Minister again for her commitment to engaging with Windrush campaigners, and to putting right the wrongs of the past.

Finally, I wish everyone who is celebrating this weekend a joyful and meaningful celebration that acknowledges and celebrates the Windrush generation, gives strength to our communities, and creates friendship, acceptance and togetherness, making less space for racism and injustice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) mentioned our dear friend Jo Cox, who was murdered by a right-wing racist nine years ago today, and whose voice we still miss in this place. I end with Jo’s words: we

“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

If we can live out that truth, we can continue to make the progress that our communities need to see.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Windrush Day 2025.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

One of the biggest challenges affecting the delivery of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is the extent of local authority funding deficits. They are currently dealt with through the statutory override, which allows local authorities to set a balanced budget without accounting for their SEND deficits. Given that the statutory override expires in March 2026, does the Secretary of State agree that a White Paper in autumn 2025 provides far too little time for the Government to implement meaningful change without extending the override further, and when does she expect local authorities to be able to have the certainty that they need to plan for the coming financial year?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree that in addition to longer-term reform, which the White Paper will deliver, it is imperative that we take action now in order to make sure that the school system better caters for children with a wide range of needs. That is why we have invested £740 million to support councils to create more specialist provision in mainstream schools. I have seen some fantastic examples right across the country, and we need to see more. On the precise question about the statutory override, we want to make sure that councils are better supported through the process, and we will set out our position very soon.

Maths: Contribution to the UK

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this debate. It is heartening to hear about his love of maths as well as the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).

I have to confess that was not my experience of school. I was at a school which had a quirk: we had to sit maths GCSE twice—once in year 10 and in year 11. Although I can report to the House that I achieved a good grade in both exams, there was a clear narrative: that maths was a difficult subject, and definitely not for everyone. A lack of enthusiasm for the subject certainly pervaded among many of my peers and was allowed to go unchecked within the education system at large. I do not blame only my school for that; I think it was a common thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said, we need to challenge that. I have done the best to challenge it with my daughters, the youngest of whom sat her maths GCSE paper yesterday, so we will see whether I have been successful.

We must have an approach that emphasises the critical importance of maths in our primary and secondary education systems and its foundational nature for so many aspects of education and life, and that also encourages a love of maths as part of a love of learning. Maths is key to problem solving and supports logistical reasoning and analytical thinking. It develops flexible thinking and creativity. Mathematical problems often require trying different approaches and tackling a question from multiple angles. Those skills equally apply in arts and the humanities subjects as they do in the maths and sciences. Maths is therefore foundational in building those essential critical skills.

The practical applications of maths matter too. Financial literacy is important for us all. The Education Committee undertook an inquiry into financial literacy in May last year, in the previous Parliament, and recommended expanding financial education at primary level, the appointment of financial education co-ordinators in secondary schools and the provision of high-quality independently provided learning materials in all schools. Budgeting and saving, planning finances for the future, understanding how loans and interest work, and contributing to a pension pot are all skills that every young person should have when they leave school.

Maths is a specialist subject, and we need skilled teachers to deliver interesting and inspiring lessons from reception all the way through to A-levels and on to higher education. There have been real challenges with the recruitment of new maths teachers for a number of years, with just under three quarters of the target of 3,000 teachers recruited for the current academic year. There are so many career opportunities open to graduates with degrees with a strong mathematical component, so it is important that the Department for Education offers strong incentives to train, recruit and retain maths teachers. I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering an extra 6,500 teachers in England. It is critical that that target includes a good level of new maths teachers, appropriately supported to be recruited and retained within our education system.

I turn briefly to the question of attainment in mathematics. Last year, 65% of pupils achieved a standard pass at grade 4 or above at GCSE in English and maths, but disadvantaged pupils were less likely to meet the expected standard—only 59% of them did so, compared with non-disadvantaged pupils. That means that 35% of young people are routinely not getting a qualification in maths while they are school. That should be a concern to us all. We want every young person to fulfil their potential in maths.

Currently, those who do not achieve a grade 4 or above are expected to resit GCSE maths during their post-16 education. For some students, that means multiple resits of a subject that they have already found challenging for several years at school, and it traps them in a cycle of failure, just at the point where they should be discovering a love of learning and finding their vocation. The Education Committee has been looking at this policy as part of our inquiry on further education and skills, and asking whether that really is the best approach for all young people who do not achieve a grade 4 or above.

For some students who achieve grade 3, the extra work in a new environment that is different from school may help them to successfully resit their maths GCSE, but for others repeated, unsuccessful resits can be demoralising and counterproductive. We have yet to report, so I cannot draw conclusions on behalf of the whole Committee, but we have received quite compelling evidence that embedding practical maths content into the curriculum for the particular subjects needed for the student’s chosen course of study may be a better way to support students on vocational pathways to achieve the level of both English and maths that they will need to apply later on in life, rather than the endless cycle of GCSE maths resits.

Moving beyond GCSEs, it is good to see that maths is the most popular A-level subject, with more than 100,000 entries for A-level maths last year, as well more than 17,000 for further maths. But within those statistics, more work is needed to tackle the gender gap, because just 37% of last year’s maths A-levels were taken by young women, and a mere 27% of last year’s further maths A-levels.

Increasing the number of girls taking maths will help to tackle the gender gap in science, engineering and maths at university and beyond. Having positive role models, and improving understanding of just how many well-paid and rewarding careers are out there, for which maths can help, are definitely two important approaches, but we need to do more. There should be more practical support available in our schools to overcome that gender gap in maths.

Maths is an important component of many STEM degrees and myriad careers. To underpin a high-skill, high-wage economy, we need more young people with a good training in maths. I will end there, but I will just say that the Education Committee looks forward to scrutinising the curriculum and assessment review, and to scrutinising the Government’s recruitment of teachers, and we hope to see good progress in improving maths education and attainment for all pupils, across all our demographics, in every part of the country.

Free School Meals

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the expansion of the free school meals entitlement. It is an evidence-based approach for which many of us have campaigned for a long time. It will help to close the disadvantage gap in our schools, tackling child poverty, benefiting children’s health and supporting children to learn.

I hope the Government will agree that every child who is eligible for this expanded entitlement should be able to receive that entitlement. Whether or not children get a free school meal to which they are entitled should not depend on somebody else making an application for them through a complicated process. The Government know which families are in receipt of universal credit, so is the Minister considering auto-enrolment for this expanded entitlement? That would be easier to achieve than auto-enrolment under the previous entitlement, and every child really should be able to benefit.

Can I seek the Minister’s assurance that this very positive announcement is not an indication that other measures to reduce child poverty, such as scrapping the two-child cap, have been taken off the table?

Finally, as a London MP and a former Southwark councillor who was very proud to be part of a council that introduced universal free school meals in 2010—we have seen the benefit of that policy, and I am proud we have a Mayor who is funding universal free school meals for all primary schoolchildren in London—can I ask for confirmation that London will also receive the funding for this expanded entitlement, so it can be put to the benefit of further reducing child poverty in London?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Select Committee Chair, for her constructive comments and for welcoming today’s announcement. Making all children in households claiming universal credit eligible for free school meals makes it straightforward for parents to know whether they are eligible. We are supporting that by taking forward a programme of work, including improvements to our own systems, which will make applying for free schools meals easier than it ever has been. As I mentioned in my statement, our proposals are fully funded. More broadly, we will set out more details in the forthcoming child poverty strategy around a number of the other measures she describes.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Teacher pay is absolutely vital for the status of the profession, for the quality of life of teachers and for recruitment and retention of the vital skilled and qualified staff who are the backbone of our education system. It is really important that the Government’s response this afternoon begins the work of restoring teacher pay after the last 14 years, when we saw, by any objective measure, a shocking erosion in teacher pay under the previous Government. That has affected recruitment and retention and had a devastating impact on teacher morale. Those on the Conservative Benches should take note of that, because we would all benefit from a little more humility in the context of the legacy that they left behind.

Can I press the Minister on the extent to which the pay award will be funded? We know that there are already extensive pressures on school budgets, and schools are very anxious about that matter. Also, will this afternoon’s statement include support staff pay, and will it begin the process of restoring that pay? We know how vital our teaching assistants and other support staff in our schools are.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful contribution. I find it somewhat disconcerting that she is being barracked by Conservative Members, when she performs a really important function for this House and is very assiduous in holding the Government to account—rightly so, as that is her role. She was right to reflect on the degradation of teachers’ pay over the past 14 years; indeed, the first thing this Government did was get last year’s STRB recommendation out of the drawer and process it—a recommendation that the last Government hid and, frankly, ran away from.

We implemented the 5.5% pay award. We absolutely recognise that pay is a really important part of ensuring we have the high-quality teachers that we need. The starting salary for teachers is now at least £31,650 outside of London and at least £38,766 in inner London. We are making progress; we are seeing the green shoots of more teachers joining the profession and staying in it, and we will continue to support that trajectory in any way we can. My hon. Friend has also rightly highlighted the vital work of support staff in schools. The Government’s approach in that regard will be confirmed in this afternoon’s written ministerial statement, as will all the details that my hon. Friend so keenly anticipates.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The crisis in the SEND system is a source of distress for parents and children who have to fight far too hard for support, and for professionals working in local authorities and schools who face an extremely challenging funding situation. Does the Secretary of State agree that in this context blaming parents and GPs for the increase in the number of SEND diagnoses, as some Reform party politicians have done in recent days, is both inaccurate and insulting, and that solving the SEND crisis requires listening to parents and professionals rather than denigrating them?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I could not agree more, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the other members of her Committee for the important work that they are doing through their inquiry on this matter. We look forward to hearing more from them in due course.

My hon. Friend is entirely right: just days before the local elections, the comments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) will have sent shivers down the spines of so many parents throughout the country. His comments were completely irresponsible and totally wrong. This Government are focusing on better outcomes for all children, including those with SEND.