Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Britannic Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, particularly as we welcome much in the direction that the Minister has outlined in his statement on behalf of the Government today.

Too often, children’s social care is discussed only when tragedy strikes, yet for thousands of children, foster carers, kinship carers and care-experienced adults, these issues are daily realities. They deserve serious and sustained attention from those in all parts of the House. As Conservatives, we believe that strong families, strong communities and strong relationships are the foundation of a flourishing society. The Government have a duty to protect vulnerable children, but we must recognise a simple truth: the state can never replace the love, commitment and sense of belonging that family provides.

One of the most powerful conclusions of the independent review of children’s social care was that every young person should leave care with at least one loving, enduring relationship in their life. That is not a party political aspiration; it is a profoundly human one. It should concern us all that so many care-experienced adults report having felt lonely and isolated during their childhood.

Many of the themes in today’s statement build on reforms that have enjoyed cross-party support for some time, such as greater recognition of kinship care, stronger family networks, increased placement stability and better outcomes for care leavers. Those are objectives that Members across the House can unite behind. I particularly welcome the focus on kinship care. Having recently met kinship carers in my constituency, I have seen at first hand the remarkable role that they play. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends step forward in difficult circumstances to provide not only a home, but continuity, identity and belonging.

I am proud that the last Conservative Government launched England’s first kinship care strategy. Kinship carers make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure that children receive the love and support they need, and they deserve recognition for that contribution. May I ask the Minister about the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Families rely on it and worry about its future. Will we see the results of that consultation? How will it interact with today’s announcements?

We also welcome the focus on foster care. For too long, we have relied on the dedication of foster carers while asking them to navigate systems that can be fragmented and bureaucratic. If fostering hubs can improve recruitment, strengthen support and increase placement stability, they deserve serious consideration. Perhaps the Minister could comment on how those hubs will be distributed across the country.

Likewise, the ambition to reduce the number of children placed far from communities is one that we strongly support. Every unnecessary move risks disrupting education, friendships and family connections. Stability matters. Almost half of foster carers say that they have had an unfilled space for a child in care in the past two years, often because they are waiting for a suitable match. What will today’s strategy do to improve matching and make the system easier to navigate for carers who are ready to provide a home?

Conservatives have long understood the importance of society’s little platoons—the families, communities, faith groups and voluntary organisations that sit between individuals and the state. Many charities and community groups already provide extraordinary support to vulnerable children and care leavers, and their contribution should never be underestimated.

We on the Conservative Benches also welcome the Minister’s determination to improve outcomes for care leavers. Too many still face a cliff edge when they leave care, with disproportionately poor outcomes in housing, employment and mental health. I would welcome further detail on the new metric to track the quality of the enduring relationships built by children in care. How will the Government measure such relationships? How will that be reflected in Ofsted inspections?

Ultimately, the success of these reforms will be judged not by strategies or structures, but by outcomes. Will more children experience stable placements? Will fewer children be moved repeatedly? Will more young people leave care with secure housing, employment opportunities and strong relationships? Will local authorities have the workforce capacity to deliver these aspirations?

Children who enter care have often experienced circumstances that most of us would struggle to imagine. They deserve not just safety, but hope; not just protection, but belonging. Where the Government act to strengthen families, support kinship carers, improve foster care and build lasting relationships, they will find us to be willing partners.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the hon. Member for the spirit in which he shared his remarks and the questions that he put to me. He is right to say that this issue requires serious and sustained attention from the House and from parties across every corner of the Chamber.

It is worth highlighting to people the disparity between what care-experienced people tell us about their experience and the experiences of the general population. Some 22% of care leavers are always or often lonely, and 15% of care leavers do not have a really good friend. Compared with the general population, those numbers are so much higher, which illustrates why this issue is so important.

Let me turn to the questions asked by the hon. Member. The adoption and special guardianship support fund is hugely important, which is why we have increased the fund by 10% this year to ensure that we can reach more families and young people with that support. The consultation response will come later this year. At the moment, the Department is focused on implementing the changes and improvements that we set out in the consultation a few months ago.

The fostering hubs will be allocated in the next few weeks, and I hope to make an announcement next month on the fostering hubs and RCCs that will be rolled out and extended further. In terms of improving matching, regional care co-operatives will play an important role in the future system in enabling us to get a much better sense, looking ahead at the years to come, of the actual sufficiency required for children in their areas.

Finally, let me turn to the new metric. The Department has worked with foundations to set out a shortlist of options of standardised measures that are valid and can be used at a practitioner and young person level but do not create undue bureaucracy or distract from the important relationships that are needed in those conversations. I am confident that we can find and roll out a measure this year that will achieve that goal.

Home-to-School Transport

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this important debate, and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions. When introducing the debate, the hon. Gentleman rightly advocated for his constituents, talking primarily about North Yorkshire. Although he left in some political barbs about his Conservative-controlled local council, he, like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), had the decency to recognise that the problem is not local, but is faced by all counties and councils.

My right hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) highlighted the scale of the challenge in North Yorkshire, which is now the highest spending local authority in the country, at £52.5 million a year. When talking about North Yorkshire specifically, we must consider the context of the council having one of the worst outcomes in the country from the Government’s so-called “fair” funding review, as well as losing the rural services delivery grant. I am afraid to say that this Government have whacked rural areas quite broadly. Honestly, it is felt on the Opposition Benches that that takes a partisan flavour.

The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) made a fluid and passionate speech. I am not familiar with the geography of his part of Kent, but it is clearly not sensible for councils not to take into account where bodies of water are—obviously, that is utterly ridiculous. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said that the failure of local authorities to build spaces locally is upstream of this issue, and that building places locally where children and parents want them would help remedy the problem.

The speech from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) was one of the more moving contributions to the debate. He articulated the story of Lewis, which is disgraceful. I hope that in the Minister’s response, she will assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get the changes that he is campaigning for. The hon. Members for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for Woking (Mr Forster) talked about the necessity of safe walking routes to school. Often, councils mark their own homework in determining that, so I would be interested to hear how the Minister might be able to hold councils to account on upholding their statutory obligation.

In this country, legislation is intended to ensure that no child is prevented from accessing education due to lack of transportation, which all hon. Members here support. However, the reality is that growing demand and spiralling costs are causing councils to question the sustainability of their current policies. An estimated 520,000 pupils use local authority-funded home-to-school transport, which cost councils a staggering £2.3 billion in 2023-24—a 70% real-terms increase on the cost in 2015-16. Of that money, £1.2 billion was spent on transporting under-16s with special educational needs to school—a figure that has gone up by 106% in real terms since 2015.

Home-to-school transport is about more than just getting children to school. The Public Accounts Committee found through its evidence gathering that for many children and young people, home-to-school transport is also about gaining a sense of independence, building their confidence and preparing for life beyond school; I know from speaking to my constituents that it is also relied on by parents so that they can go to work. However, the figures show that the rising cost of home-to-school transport is placing significant financial burdens on councils, which, they warn, is making delivery of their statutory obligations increasingly unsustainable.

If meeting statutory obligations is becoming an increasing challenge, the non-statutory things that make our communities what they are all get squeezed. We also know that local authorities are consistently spending more on home-to-school transport than they have budgeted. In my time in the cabinet of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead in the mid-2010s, the home-to-school transport budget was one that continually popped out with significant pressures. I know that it is many magnitudes different today.

We have to look at how we can make home-to-school transport more sustainable for the future. We have had many discussions in this House about the pressure on the SEND system more broadly. While many questions remain, it is right that the Government are talking about reform. Children deserve the right support, and parents want a system that works for them and not against them. As Members have highlighted, the huge increase in the number of children with EHCPs, which went up by 166% between January 2015 and January 2025, has had a knock-on impact on demand for home-to-school transport.

The National Audit Office estimates that around a third of pupils with EHCPs attend special schools. As those schools tend to serve broader geographical areas, it is more likely that their pupils will live beyond a statutory walking distance and therefore qualify for transport. A survey conducted by the Local Government Association suggests that the average cost per child of providing SEND transport is now nearly £9,000 per year. That is almost triple the average cost of providing mainstream transport, which is just over £3,000 per child.

Effective SEND reform is essential if councils are going to be able to sustain school transport services for those who rightly require them. For SEND children, the Education Secretary has said that the Government will

“respond to the challenges that local authorities are facing with home-to-school transport…by improving provision closer to home.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 75.]

That is welcome in principle. However, we know that implementing that scale of reform will take a substantial amount of time. The bulk of the reforms will not be introduced until 2029 at the earliest. Local authorities and children who rely on their services need help now, not in three or four more years.

In some instances, I am afraid to say that we are actually going backwards. In my own constituency, the much-needed Chiltern Way Academy Trust, a 100-place specialist school that was promised for west Windsor, was withdrawn from the Government’s free school programme. Instead, £5.4 million of additional high needs capital funding was offered and accepted by the Liberal Democrat-controlled royal borough. In my view, that is a deeply disappointing short-termist decision. I am sure that is a story replicated across many constituencies across the country.

What are the Government are doing now to help local authorities cut the ballooning cost of home-to-school transport in the immediate term? What specific assessment has the Minister’s Department conducted of the longer-term impact of SEND reforms on the cost of home-to-school transport? The Public Accounts Committee has warned that plans to write off 90% of the historic deficit from overspend on SEND

“fail to take into account burgeoning home to school transport costs.”

I implore the Minister to urgently clarify what those funding arrangements will actually mean for home-to-school transport cost pressures.

It is also worth highlighting that school places nearer to home could go a long way towards supporting young people to build their independence as they move into adulthood. While independent travel is not possible for everyone, it is right that the Government make every effort to support those who could use public transport to start building experiences while they are in school. The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport found that travel experience from daily to-and-from school transport could help children to become independent and use public transport. In some cases, helping children gain the tools that they will need is what true support might look like.

Rather than launching attacks on individual councils for decisions to align their policies with DFE guidance and address rising, unsustainable financial pressures, we need to look at how we can support all councils to manage those pressures and make home-to-school transport sustainable for the future. That is not just an issue facing a handful of councils. The spiralling cost of home-to-school transport is a nationwide issue, and without urgent action from the Government, those pressures will only continue to grow.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave a few minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) to wind up.

Education

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Written Corrections

[Josh MacAlister]

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about introducing a new scheme for staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.

[Jack Rankin]

…Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?

[Josh MacAlister]

As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office for Students. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.

[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 17.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education:

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is absolutely right. Whether it is Zionist views, gender critical perspectives, climate scepticism, or challenging the perceived wisdom that diversity is our strength with the need to put terrorism barriers around Christmas markets, there is a clear two-tier approach to free speech on our campuses, and students are the nub of it, which is exactly why the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act gave students the right to go to the Office for Students. Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?

[Josh MacAlister]

As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office for Students. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.

World Book Day

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It’s a pleasure to serve ’neath your chair’ship today,

And I hope you’ll forgive if today—just today—

I do not speak

In the usual way.

For today—yes, today!—is World Book Day, they say.

A day made for books and bright words at their play.

I thank my Honourable Friend with a cheer and a grin,

The Member for Dulwich and West Norwood—who let the debate on reading begin!

And today—yes, today!—on this most Bookish of days,

I won’t stick to the script in much-loved Erskine May.

No dry phrases today in the proper array—

I’ll try it instead in a Seussian way!

So today—yes, today!—we can happily spend

Time on good stories from beginning to end.

With a flip and a flourish, a swish and a sway,

For books are the best thing to brighten the day!

Here comes a test for my rhyming wordplay

For a brief jot in time while I quickly relay

The wisdom and pearls of Honourable Friends here today

I’ve made up on the spot in the Seussian way.

If it’s “Reading for fun and going all in”,

Grab that book off the shelf—take your mind off for a spin.

Each little child with a token and smile

Turns books into grammar, spelling and maths improved style.

From Strangford, we heard about Andy McNab

His strong love for reading shows in his gift of the gab

We thank all the libraries that open their doors

Not just to the building but lands on strange shores.

Like Isle of Wight West where Dickens and Tennyson called home

But not, to my knowledge, did Jerome K Jerome.

From Bracknell we heard about Fox Hill primary’s new library,

Something we want in every secondary and primary.

Glasgow West told of how Heidi inspired

As well as how books during conflict required

Too many speeches—I can’t do them all

But all of them wonderful in Westminster Hall.

I’m not quite yet done with my Dr-Seuss speech

There’s more—yes, some more—’fore the exits you reach.

For I haven’t yet shared my own greatest tale

Of two little boys from near Sunningdale.

A hop and a skip to the next village along

Are two little boys who love books, deep and strong.

The older loves space, rockets and sky

The littler one dinosaurs

who roar as they fly.

By accident or luck did it happen? It did not!

For many things quickly take the top spot!

Grown-ups are tired and they work all day through

So easy it is to forget what is true.

But the truth is that after another long day,

The thing I love most when I’m tired is say,

“Sit on my lap, boys. Rest your sleepy heads down,”

For a tale before bed will melt any frown.

It needn’t be complex or long as a Tolkien,

A Tolstoy or Dickens, James Joyce, and be hulking;

Few words here and there—what a difference they make

To children’s vocabularies and the brain cells they shake.

For Maths chaps like me who like numbers, not words

Books we still need for fractions like thirds

Whether green eggs and ham or bears from Peru,

Scientists can still marvel at brave Cindy Lou Who.

If kids 10 to 16 read for fun, not by force

They’ll get better jobs in the future workforce.

It has much more effect than if Mum or Dad went to uni,

So pick up that book and make your OWN dreams come true-ni!

When the Blue team were boss back in two thousand and twelve

Just 58% of six-year-olds reached the standards we delved

By the time we had gone

and up to the now,

The figure has soared to 80%

Wow—oh wow—wow!

Primary aged bookworms in England are best,

Now the best of the best—oh, yes—in the West.

Of Europe at least, and on this I don’t jest!

The best little readers of the rest in the West!

The Blue team are glad that the Red team agreed

In their Curriculum Review our reforms they still need

For phonics are king when it comes to learning

How to decode the letters and for stories yearning.

In the Lorax, Seuss taught us to love trees a lot

and said: “Unless someone likes you cares a whole awful lot,

nothing is going to get better.

It’s not.”



So now comes the time for my ask of the Reds.

Don’t worry or wobble—there’s nothing to dread.

For many of them are already decided.

With parents they agree and with their views they’ve sided.

For now is the time to ban phones from school proper.

Guidance alone means schools still come a cropper.

Despite their best efforts, it’s hard to stop-per.

So come on now Red team—stop delaying and do!

And while we’re at it,

ban social media for under-16s too.

There’s votes just next week; it isn’t too late

To do the right thing ’stead of making us wait.

I thank Honourable Friends for their patience and time.

I’ve enjoyed all the speeches, although none others rhymed.

But isn’t that the wonder of novels and stories

It matter not whether Lib Dem, Labour or Tories—

There’s one thing on which we can all agree

On World Book Day we can be one and not three!

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I sincerely hope that was not AI-generated; it was a very special effort. Follow that, Minister!

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jack Rankin]

I will, but I am aware of time.

[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

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of StandWithUs UK’s “Voice of Students 2024/25” report on antisemitism on university campuses.

[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

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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)]

14. What steps she is taking to improve management accountability at multi-academy trusts.

[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.