Oral Answers to Questions
Jack Rankin Excerpts(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Secretary of State has bent over backwards to avoid backing a ban on mobile phones in schools. Her Back Benchers are making their views clear, so can she confirm whether she will be whipping them next week to vote against our amendment to ban phones in schools? We look forward to the Government’s 17th U-turn in as many months—the 18th if the one on Iran counts—but if a U-turn is not coming, why does she continue to stand in the way of parents, heads and her own Back Benchers, who simply want classrooms free from disruption?
Olivia Bailey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, but I am afraid he did not listen to the answer I just gave on this exact topic, which is that, in the consultation we announced today, we are consulting on whether a statutory ban is needed. Secondly, it is my firm belief that we have addressed the root cause of the problem, which is that the policies are not sufficiently clear and that they are not being well enough enforced. That is what we are doing by asking Ofsted to inspect these policies, and we are supporting schools through our attendance and behaviour hubs.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?
Josh MacAlister
I would like to think there is cross-party agreement that tackling educational inequality is one of the most important things that we can do. It is a shame on our country that we are one of the most unequal when it comes to the relationship between how well a child can do at school and how much money is in their parents’ pockets. The Labour party is all about addressing such inequalities, and that is what this Government are doing. That is in no way at odds with finding ways to make our student loan system fairer and fixing it after the 10 years of freezes on thresholds by the Conservatives that hit working graduates.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
When I visit primary and first schools, teachers tell me that when given a book, more and more children starting school are swiping it, rather than knowing how to turn the page. If the Secretary of State is serious about raising phonics standards at key stage 1, will she act now to empower parents and get screens out of classrooms, and back a ban on social media for under-16s to create the right habits early? Or will she continue to drag her feet, given that it has already taken six weeks to even launch a consultation that we all know the answer to?
Bridget Phillipson
We have launched that consultation. I am clear that phones have no place in our schools, and schools should enforce that policy and ensure that it is being followed.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious and reasonable question about some of the challenges that we see when children arrive at primary school. That is why through our Best Start family hubs and the National Year of Reading, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that more parents and children are more supported. All of us as parents have to lead by example in that regard.
Student Loan Repayment Plans
Jack Rankin Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this important debate and highlighting one of the major challenges facing many young people in this country today: student loan repayments. Despite my youthful looks, I can clarify that I am on the last year of plan 1 loans, so this issue does not directly affect me. I have many contemporaries in that situation, though, and I think I understand it well.
When growing numbers of graduates are leaving university with mountains of debt and graduate recruitment is at a record low, there is an urgent need to address a system that is failing graduates. The hon. Member for Ilford South asked for broad agreement on that point. Although I did not agree with everything in his remarks, I think he has broad support across the House that the system as currently designed is not working. This issue affects a huge proportion of young people, given that over 50% of them now go to university. Combine that with a 30-year lifespan, and it becomes a generational problem.
Perhaps by coincidence, rather than design, this debate coincides with the announcement made by His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition of a new deal for young people. I acknowledge that it is partly responsive, but it has helped to bring the issue to the top of the news agenda. This debate could not be timelier. For young people, particularly those on plan 2 loans, there is not a moment to lose.
Sarah Russell
The hon. Gentleman has referred to plan 2 loans but plan 3 loans were also brought in by his Government. Plan 3 loans are for those with postgraduate qualifications—people who are definitely making an economic contribution to our society—and now kick in from when they earn £21,000. Does he agree that that was the wrong thing for his Government to do?
Jack Rankin
I do not want to talk about each plan individually, but this does need to be looked at in the round, as the hon. Lady is quite right to say.
Returning to the hon. Member for Ilford South, I am glad that he recognised—which some of his colleagues did not—that the beneficiaries of student loans should be asked to contribute. He called for fairness. I agree with him that, as it stands, the balance is not quite right. To my mind—the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke to this—the main issue that we have seen is the breach of the promise on thresholds being frozen and on interest rates being increased. I acknowledge that we did that in government, but it has happened most recently in the recent Budgets. That is morally indefensible.
The hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who I do not think are in their places anymore, made similar contributions from a left-wing point of view. I gently suggest that the mechanisms for mass debt cancellations, or even more, what they call “progressive taxation”, is not where we need to be. I am afraid I consider that to be the politics of the magic money tree. When we look at what is happening, one of the things that graduates are upset about is the unreasonable marginal rates of tax that they face as graduates when the student loan is included. More so-called “progressive” marginal rates of income tax would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I am aware that many a Conservative ex-Minister has stood at the shadow Dispatch Box and criticised the Government for things they themselves were doing in the recent past, so I say this with some self-awareness, but I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) that the Liberal Democrats have to be careful on this issue—the faces on the Government Benches when the Liberal Democrats made some of their remarks were quite the picture.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who I believe is the Chair of the Education Committee, made a fair point about the balance in education between economic outcomes and the broader social good of education. I agree with her that the case for education is broader than just economic, but I suggest that there is a balance. We have to be careful about whether it is progressive to send working-class children on university courses that will laden them with debt, but not provide them with the economic outcomes that they might need. There is a balance there to tread.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) talked about the nuance here, between the oppressive interest rates and the 30-year repayment threshold.
Kevin Bonavia
The hon. Member made the point about working-class people thinking about whether to go to university and be loaded with debt. Why should they have that worry when people who have far more family income do not have to make that choice?
Jack Rankin
I am not sure that I recognise that statement. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I was not born in the parliamentary seat of Windsor. I grew up in Ashton-under-Lyne and was the kind of child the hon. Member probably has in mind. My passion at school was history but I did maths and physics at university. That was partly an economic choice that gave me opportunities that my parents and people I went to school with could not have dreamed of. That was a sensible decision I made for me and my family. Dismissing that as a relevant factor is not progressive.
Natasha Irons
On that point about making an economic choice, we are talking about the creative industries, which are worth hundreds of billions of pounds to our economy. Ensuring we have a diverse voice and qualified people in those jobs and having access to those skills is really important. I was a working-class child who ended up working at Channel 4 because of my degree. We should not ask working-class children to make those distinctions so early on in their careers; we should give them the opportunity to experience those careers as they move forward.
Jack Rankin
I agree, but would gently say that we want to ensure that people take the highest-quality creative courses imaginable, which we can honestly say will have economic benefits for them. That is the nuance and balance.
Because of the time, I will move on to my substantive remarks, though hon. Members having two minutes and 90 seconds to contribute does not do justice to the strength of feeling across the House. There is obviously broad unhappiness from those of all political colours and world views, and I wonder whether more time could be found to debate the matter on the Floor of the House.
The measures announced by the Chancellor in the autumn Budget are the most punitive yet for threshold and interest freezes. The freezing of repayment thresholds from April 2027 will cost the average graduate a further £300 a year by 2030, in an environment where rents are through the roof, job opportunities are few and the tax burden is at an all-time high. I gently say to the Minister that although we do have to balance the system so it is fiscally sustainable, this was done not to pay for education but to balance the books more broadly, which is unfair.
As I acknowledged earlier, it is unfair to change the rules post the fact for students who entered into the loan system in good faith when they were 18. Many graduates regard that as the behaviour of a loan shark rather than what they want to see from Government.
This week the Conservative party announced a new deal for young people, which rests on three pillars. The first is to reform the unfair student loans system. We would abolish real interest on plan 2 loans, ensuring that balances never rise faster than inflation. That responds to many of the criticisms in this debate.
The second pillar is more controversial. The fact is that university is not for everyone, nor should it be. One of the best ways to escape the debt pile is to avoid it. A university degree in today’s economy no longer guarantees work, sadly evidenced by the 700,000 graduates currently on benefits. That is why we would lift the funding cap for apprenticeships from 18 to 21-year-olds.
The third pillar is that we would make work pay through our new jobs bonus, where the first £5,000 of national insurance paid by any British citizen starting their first job would be placed in a personal savings account in their name. That money could go towards a deposit, starting a business or building a family.
Together with our plan to scrap stamp duty, that will help young people achieve home ownership and financial independence. Taken together, it represents the most ambitious policy package for young people in years and would re-enfranchise the lost generation. Fixing the voting system should be a priority for this Government. It is about fairness, repairing the intergenerational compact and ensuring that young people who play by the rules are rewarded for their aspiration and not taxed on it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Local Authority Children’s Services
Jack Rankin Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate, and for his powerful and thoughtful contribution, particularly in relation to the tragic case of Sara Sharif.
We have heard thoughtful contributions from right across the House this morning. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke passionately about her city, about sharing best practice and about the importance of the first 1,001 days of a child’s life, which are critical. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the variation in children’s services around the country and how it is a postcode lottery, and in particular about the difference between London and the south-west. It is heartening to hear that services in his Devon constituency are improving.
There were calls for joined-up thinking from right across the House, led by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) supported the hon. Member for Woking by raising concerns on behalf of her constituents regarding the quality of care from Surrey county council. I was particularly moved by the personal commitment to looked-after children by the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who brought his experience to bear.
Themes we have heard from right across the House include support for kinship carers, the need for long-term funding, the lack of places, and the fact that we need processes in order to learn the vital lessons of the past. I associate His Majesty’s loyal Opposition with those themes and, in particular, with Members’ tributes to frontline staff. There may be systemic issues, but we know that frontline staff do their best under difficult constraints. They are overworked and underpaid, and deserve all of our support.
I think the nature of need in the country is shocking. Local authorities in England are supporting around 400,000 children in need. That is roughly one in 30 children. As of the end of March last year, around 49,000 children were subject to child protection plans, and more than 80,000 were in local authority care. Those figures should give us pause; one in 30 children is the equivalent of a child in every classroom. But this debate is not about numbers; it is about children—the most vulnerable, at-risk children in our communities. It is not about statistics, but about lives—and, in the case of Sara Sharif, a life lost.
Sara was living in Woking when she was murdered by her father and stepmother. The hon. Member for Woking has rightly been a passionate advocate for change, particularly since the publication of the local child safeguarding practice review. I commend him for that work. Nine of the 15 recommendations in the review were wholly or partially local, and I echo the call for Surrey county council to implement them swiftly but thoroughly. It is our responsibility in this place to ensure that where national recommendations are made, children’s services are properly equipped to meet their statutory duties. I welcome the work that has begun, but there is more to do.
Nationally, the scale of pressures on children’s services is clear. According to the Local Government Association, the number of children in care is 18% higher than a decade ago. Councils now carry out more than 600 child protection investigations every single day. But despite increased budgeted spending, councils have been overspending on children’s social care by an average of 14% each year, and planned budgets for 2025-26 show a further 10% rise in costs. At the heart of this lies a fundamental problem: a shortage of high-quality placements for looked-after children. Demand continues to outstrip supply, driving up costs and putting intense pressure on social care, SEND services and care leaver support.
Under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of local authority children’s services rated good or outstanding rose from 24% in 2015 to 60% in 2024, according to the Institute for Government. That progress matters, but it is equally true that around a third of local authorities still require improvement or are judged inadequate. This is about children’s safety. Having listened to hon. Members from across the political spectrum, I hope I speak for many in saying that we all want the Government to succeed in this area. Getting children’s services right underpins so many outcomes and, most importantly, helps prevent tragedies like Sara’s from ever happening again.
The hon. Member for Woking may know that part of my constituency is in the Surrey county council area. The council has committed to implementing all the local recommendations in full. I share some of his concerns about the culture in that team and the need for joined-up services, so that children do not fall between the cracks. Encouragingly, Ofsted’s most recent inspection, in 2025, highlighted some improvements at the front door of services. Inspectors noted that referrals to the children’s single point of access received “timely and proportionate” responses, and that there was effective partnership working with the police, particularly in cases of domestic abuse and missing children. Multi-agency strategy meetings were found to be “timely and well attended” leading to considered decisions. Those are vital steps forward and I welcome them.
I have met the new lead member, Councillor Jonathan Hulley, to discuss this matter. I have a great deal of personal confidence in him, and he recognises the scale of change required in this area. I was heartened to see that a motion calling for an independent expert review of the improvements made at Surrey county council following Sara’s death was passed unanimously by the council last month, with cross-party support. That independent scrutiny is essential to providing confidence that reforms are effective, lasting and properly focused. I will be watching closely for its outcomes, as I know the hon. Member for Woking will be, and I hope that we can all embrace the cross-party approach of our county colleagues across Surrey and within the council to drive sustained improvement.
As well as Surrey, in my constituency I also deal with children’s services delivered by the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and by Slough borough council—I do not know whether I am unique in having three different children’s services. Ofsted rated the royal borough’s services as good in October 2024. By contrast, Slough has been inadequate since early 2023, although subsequent focus visits, including in July 2024, found that children in need and those on child protection plans were receiving timely and appropriate services.
These neighbouring authorities illustrate a simple but uncomfortable truth: children’s services remain a postcode lottery. Where services are well led, outcomes can and do improve under the existing framework; where they struggle, the causes are often leadership, capability and delivery on the ground, not the absence of legislative powers. That is why we should be careful and cautious about assuming that more legislation on its own will necessarily lead to better outcomes for children.
I wish to talk briefly about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which continues its passage in the other place. I welcome the Government’s acceptance of several amendments responding to the recommendations from the Sara Sharif review, particularly proposals to pilot meetings with parents before deregistration from school, and the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. However, there remain serious concerns. As drafted, the Bill would not fully address the specific safeguarding loopholes identified in Sara’s case. Baroness Barran is doing excellent work in the Lords to close those gaps, and I hope that the Government will think again on some of those issues. I welcome the Government’s introduction of unique child identification, as we previously called for. More broadly, the principle of a register of children not in school, as raised by the hon. Member for Woking, has long enjoyed cross-party support. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
Education matters and school attendance should be the norm, but parental choice also matters. Elective home education is a legitimate option for many families. As it stands, the Bill does not strike the right balance. I have received numerous representations from constituents concerned that the proposals would place excessive and unnecessary burdens on responsible home-educating families. The requirement to detail exact hours of education, on pain of breaking the law, is particularly intrusive and fails to reflect the reality of flexible home-based learning. Safeguarding measures must be proportionate and focused on identifying genuine risk, not on creating layers of bureaucracy that stigmatise families who are doing the right thing.
I urge the Government to go further in tightening the conditions under which a local authority may withhold consent for elective home education. Government amendment 120 to the Bill, which would apply where a child has been on a child protection plan within the past five years, does not go far enough. Local authorities should also consider whether a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, even where those proceedings did not result in a care order, as tragically was the case with Sara.
If the Bill is to honour its stated purpose, it must focus relentlessly on protecting children at genuine risk, not on sweeping up responsible families into an overly prescriptive system. Getting this right matters; as we have heard today, children’s lives depend on it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jack Rankin Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the report by StandWithUs UK. Antisemitism has no place in our lecture halls, campuses and universities, and no place in our society. Universities must be places where all students feel safe and respected, and are able to thrive. A week ago today, I brought together university vice-chancellors and community leaders to hear testimonials from Jewish students, and to discuss next steps to ensure safer and more inclusive campuses for all our students.
Jack Rankin
What StandWithUs UK sets out in its report into antisemitism and support for terrorism at British universities is a source of national shame. It is high time that we heeded the stipulation in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition that so-called anti-Zionism is nothing less that anti-Jewish racism. I urge the Secretary of State to reiterate that crucial point and ask whether she will commit to enacting the report’s important recommendations, including introducing a framework of escalating financial penalties for universities that fail to safeguard their Jewish students from such hateful intolerance and extremism.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that incredibly important issue that we, as a Government, take extremely seriously, because no student should be subject to antisemitism on universities campuses or in any place in our education system. That is why we have committed £7 million of funding to address antisemitism in education. Half a million pounds of that has already been awarded to University Jewish Chaplaincy to support student welfare on university campuses. That runs alongside the new condition of registration from the Office for Students that will ensure we protect students from harassment and discrimination.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jack Rankin Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
We are aware that some groups of children have a higher risk of exclusion, which is why we are breaking down barriers to opportunity, to ensure that every child can achieve and thrive. We are committed to ensuring earlier intervention in mainstream schools for pupils, particularly those at risk of exclusion.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Accountability is non-negotiable for this Government, and we know that when standards slip, it is disadvantaged children who suffer. Through Ofsted reform, we are putting an end to high stakes, low information headline judgments, and in their place school report cards will provide clear detail on what schools are doing well, and where they must improve. High standards must be for every child in every school, so we are increasing the oversight of multi-academy trusts. Our focus remains on standards, not structures.
Jack Rankin
I have a case in my constituency where a governor feels that she was pushed out, having raised concerns about senior teaching staff. I understand from last year’s Sky News report that that may not necessarily be an isolated incident, as the accountability process potentially involves trustees marking their own homework. I am a strong supporter of academies, but there must be a balance. Will the Minister commit to bringing in a system of accountability and transparency to prevent such things from happening?
Catherine McKinnell
Where concerns about an academy are identified or raised, the Department works closely with the trust to ensure that all statutory requirements are being met. We are legislating in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for a more proportionate route to intervention in the event of trusts not complying with legal duties, or acting in a way that is not reasonable. I appreciate the complexity of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss it further.