Independent Faith Schools: VAT

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of VAT on independent faith schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I hope that this debate will go well. I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to engaging with her. I have given her a copy of my speaking notes; the last two pages are my asks. I also thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), who is here as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I think has been elevated to the role of Opposition spokesperson for this debate.

It is a real pleasure to raise the issue. It is certainly not the first time that we have discussed this move by the Government, which was announced when they came into power. I note that in the Public Gallery we have Dr Garrie-John Barnes, the new chief executive officer of the Christian Schools Trust; Steve Beegoo, the head of education at Christian Concern; and three people who are staff and parents at a small Christian school in Reading that is having to close because of the VAT and business rates relief policies. They are among the instigators for this debate, which I have secured on their behalf and on behalf of many others—I will outline who they are as I make progress through my speech.

For the record, my private secretary is also here: the lady in the corner of the Public Gallery. She writes all my speeches. I think people say, “My goodness, she’s overworked,” and she probably is, but there you are. She is not often here, but she is here for this debate and I thank her.

Although my sons and grandchildren all went through the publicly funded school system and have excelled in their own right, I have met many people who have made the difficult decision to pay towards their children’s education, not because they can afford to do so, but because their personal faith is at odds with the many moves away from the moral values and ethics that they cherish. That is their motivation, and that is why we are having this debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me and other hon. Members the chance to contribute to it.

The idea that independent schools are for the ultra-wealthy is simply not true. I secured this debate for my Strangford constituents who attend the Bangor independent Christian school in the neighbouring constituency of North Down; for international students who attend Rockport, outside Belfast; for those who attend Holywood Steiner school; and for those who attend Jewish schools or Muslim schools. I do not need to agree with the theology to agree that pupils’ parents should have a school choice that reflects treasured, essential values.

I have been in touch with the Independent Schools Council, which represents about 1,400 schools across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those 1,400 schools represent roughly 80% of all UK pupils who attend fee-paying schools. According to the ISC’s most recent annual census, 663 of the schools among its membership have a religious affiliation or ethos, meaning that 47% of the schools that the ISC represents are faith schools. That reinforces my belief that we need to ensure that the Government look past the view that this is about rich parents, and that they understand the bigger faith picture. I hope to focus on that faith picture, as I hope other hon. Members will.

Overall, about 370,000 pupils attend an independent school in England with an identified religious ethos. That equates to some 60% of pupils at independent schools. It is not a small figure, and I say respectfully that it cannot be ignored. We need to address the issue. Although the majority of those schools are of Christian denomination, the independent sector also provides essential provision to minority faiths.

I talked to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) today. He wanted to be here, but he has an event at 5 o’clock and it would have been too tight to attend this debate and then get to Birmingham. I think he is somewhere in Birmingham today.

About 20,000 pupils attend Islamic faith schools. The importance of faith schools is clear. All schools must follow the Equality Act 2010 and welcome every pupil, but issues around curriculum, diet and religious holidays can make it difficult for more religiously observant pupils to be accommodated in mainstream schools. Many independent faith schools therefore provide access to education in a religious context that is not always possible in the state sector. That can be Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

Fees in many independent faith schools are less than the state pays per pupil—circa £8,000—and in some cases community fundraising efforts support those who are less able to pay for education. For example, the average annual fee for Islamic schools in the ISC is about £3,000 per year. Chinuch UK is an organisation that represents some 20,000 Haredi Orthodox Jewish pupils attending 65 schools across the United Kingdom. On average, those schools typically ask for a voluntary contribution of less than £100 per week. The Christian Schools Trust represents 25 schools charging between £3,000 and £8,000 per year in fees, often with high levels of bursary provision. That gives us a bit of background, factually and financially.

The ISC has been tracking the impact of VAT on the sector as a whole. Although it may take a few years for us to see the full impact, it is clear that there has been an initial impact. Opposition to the VAT on independent schools, particularly independent faith schools, has been an aggravating factor for the parents back home in my constituency whose children attend the independent faith school in Bangor. They are not rich people. They are working people who scrimp and save to put money aside so that they can ensure that they will be in a position to provide the faith education that they wish for their children.

Although the data cannot be broken down to measure the impact of VAT on faith schools specifically, case studies make it clear that the impact has been felt strongly. On pupil movement from the independent sector to the state sector, the Treasury impact assessment of VAT states that

“a greater degree of impact may be felt by faith school pupils if they cannot be placed in an alternative school with the same religious denomination.”

I say respectfully to the Government that their policy has, in a way, discriminated against those from independent schools who might have, and probably do have, a religious denomination that they wish to adhere to and stay with.

The result has been that since the general election in July 2024, 110 independent schools have closed, of which 10 have been involved in mergers. There has been an impact on about 9,500 students, including almost 2,500 with special educational needs and disabilities. New independent schools that have opened are predominantly SEND schools, while those closing are mostly mainstream schools. Overall, we are seeing a net loss of mainstream provision. Whereas some of the new independent schools setting up are specifically looking after children with special educational needs, a great many others have been disaffected and have nowhere for their faith and educational and religious viewpoint to be retained.

In the schools that remain open, there has been a drop of 25,000, or 5.2%, in the number of students since 2023, according to the ISC’s September pupil numbers survey. The September 2025 pupil numbers survey showed a fall in pupil numbers of 17,000, or 3.6%, in the past academic year alone. Those stats show the unfortunate impact of what is happening, which is that having to pay VAT is putting many independent faith schools at a disadvantage. It is also notable that the September pupil numbers survey continued to show a larger fall in intake years, with reception and year 7 numbers down closer to 5% in the last academic year.

Although there might be some debate about the extent of the impact of VAT on pupil numbers, the fall is out of step with the normal trend of our pupil surveys and confirms the decline shown by the Department for Education’s figures and by the ISC census published in spring 2025. It is a trend that has happened directly because of VAT on independent schools. It puts them at a disadvantage, leaves them disaffected and confirms the decline. That cannot be ignored. What was portrayed as a tax on the rich has instead turned out to be a tax on those with a strong faith.

No one would expect me, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, to highlight the shortfall in religious freedom in other countries without highlighting a decision in this country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that is having an educational impact on those of a strong faith, whether that faith is Christian, Muslim or Jewish. My job as chair of the APPG is to highlight that in a way that I hope will come over strongly and show what the effect has been.

The decision to apply VAT to independent school fees was projected to raise some £1.5 billion annually. Although raising revenue is important—nobody denies that it is critical for the Government to raise revenue to pay the bills and pay for public services—we must ensure that the policy is proportionate and does not unintentionally harm those it was never meant to target. I do not doubt that the Government did not set out with the intention to effect the changes that are clearly happening in independent faith-based schools.

This debate is not and has never been about elite institutions charging some £30,000 a year for fees. I am talking about parents and young people such as those in my constituency who travel to the Bangor independent Christian school. They are not rich. They scrimp and save. They do not take holidays; they put their money aside so that the child can have an education at a faith-based school that can hopefully be of benefit to them.

This debate is about low-fee independent faith schools, many of which charge under £4,000 annually and which serve modest income families in Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities. For those families, faith-based education is not a luxury but a deep necessity. In many areas, there is no equivalent provision in the state sector that reflects their religious ethos. Alongside other hon. Members—including you, Sir Alec, based on comments that you have made in the Chamber—I want to protect that religious ethos on my constituents’ behalf.

The Independent Schools Council has proposed a simple and fair solution, which is my ask for the Minister. She will find it on pages 6 and 7 of my speaking notes. I am very conscious that we are asking for something that the Minister may not be able to confirm that she can do. My request is that she ask the responsible Treasury Minister to look at the comments and the solutions that have been put forward, which I believe may be helpful. I always try to be constructive, as you know, Sir Alec—I set out what I am trying to do in any debate to which I contribute in this House—and I ask for that in return.

The Independent Schools Council has proposed a simple and fair solution: introduce a VAT registration threshold for independent schools charging below the state-funding benchmark of £7,690 per pupil. If that could be considered, it would be a step in the right direction, as it would enable small independent faith schools to move forward in a positive fashion. The proposal is not a novel concept: the VAT system already includes thresholds to protect smaller entities from disproportionate burdens, and over half of UK businesses operate below the VAT registration threshold. Those are examples of this working, and of how it can be done. Again, I ask the Minister to refer this solution to the correct person in the correct Department to ensure that it can be done.

Only around 270 independent schools—roughly 10% of them—would qualify under the ISC’s proposal, but it would make a difference, as it would enable smaller schools to survive and come out on the other side. About 54,000 pupils would benefit, and the VAT revenue loss is estimated to be £32 million, which is just 2% of the projected £1.5 billion that the Department will get from putting VAT on independent school fees. However, if even a small percentage of those pupils transfer to the state sector, the cost to the Treasury rises sharply. That is a negative side to the policy. If there are no independent faith schools, pupils will have to go into the mainstream, and if they do that, the cost factor rises. If all those pupils were absorbed into the state sector, it would cost more than £415 million annually, even before accounting for infrastructure expansion.

In fiscal terms, the exemption is modest; in social terms, it is significant. This threshold would protect low-income families, preserve community-based education, maintain educational diversity and avoid putting unnecessary pressure on the state system. Those are some benefits that could be derived from moving towards the VAT registration threshold of £7,690 per pupil, under which a percentage of independent faith schools would qualify and 54,000 pupils would benefit. It would also not put the same pressure on the educational system as doing nothing would. In my opinion, and that of some of the experts and some of those in the Gallery, implementation would be straightforward. School fee information is publicly available, Ofsted already inspects fee policies and anti-avoidance safeguards are in place.

This is not about special treatment or asking for something that nobody else should get; it would enable people to have their faith, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and to have their children educated in the school they wish, without it costing them the earth. It is about proportionality and fairness.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I appreciate the solution that the hon. Gentleman is presenting for faith-based schools, but does he accept that any tax on education is wrong in principle? Would he support my party’s policy of reversing the burden of VAT for all independent schools?

[Jim Shannon]

This debate is quite clearly on VAT on independent faith-based schools, but I do support that principle and have voted accordingly in the Chamber, as has been recorded. I am today putting forward the case for independent faith-based schools and asking for them to be considered differently, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

This issue is about proportionality, fairness and protecting vulnerable communities from unintended harm. The Government may not have accepted or understood the harm that this would cause, but there is a way of preventing it. I put that suggestion to the Minister. I believe that we can meet our fiscal objectives without undermining access to faith-based education for families of modest means.

Those are the people I know, the people from my constituency who send their children to independent, faith-based schools. They are the ones who have asked me to bring forward this debate. People here in the Public Gallery represent some 1,400 schools across the United Kingdom. We speak for people with a Christian faith, a Muslim faith and a Jewish faith—I make that quite clear. I urge the Minister and the Government to consider a targeted VAT threshold, to reflect economic realism—that is what we want to try to do—and social responsibility.

I am pleased that the Minister is in her place; this is the second time this week that she has come to Westminster Hall. I look to her respectfully and graciously to enable those conversations within the Cabinet, and to right the wrong that has been done.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank all hon. Members for attending, and particularly the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for his characteristically engaging speech. I am grateful for the suggestions that he made, which have all been noted. I also congratulate his staff member, who is in the Public Gallery, on her super-human efforts with the volume of wonderful speeches she produces. It was great that the hon. Member was able to congratulate her as well. While I perhaps did not agree with the content of the speech given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), I admire the speed with which she assembled it here today.

Education matters. It sits at the very heart of this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, ensuring every child, wherever they live and whatever their background, has the best possible start in life and access to a high-quality education. Our priority is clear: to raise school standards for every child. I believe that this is a priority shared by colleagues across the House, as is clear from the speeches in this debate.

The Government value the contribution that faith schools make to our diverse education system. Faith schools, whether private or state funded, have long played, and continue to play, a really vital role. We continue to work closely with faith school providers, representative organisations and local authorities to find ways to support private faith schools. The Government respect parental choice, and faith schools in the private and state sectors will remain part of that choice.

The truth is, however, that we inherited a dire fiscal situation from the previous Government, and families, including those in faith communities, were dealing with sky-high interest rates, underfunded public services and a broken NHS. That is why we have taken some fair and necessary decisions on tax, which will stabilise public finances and secure the additional funding required to deliver on our commitments to education and young people. The measure that we are discussing will raise essential revenue that will be invested in our public services, such as the £1.7 billion increase to the core schools budget in 2026-27, taking core school funding to £67 billion compared with £65.3 billion in 2025-26.

The Government carefully considered a range of representations made by faith schools, including a proposal for a low-fee carve out. However, the Government concluded that in line with the principles of protecting revenue and fairness, faith schools should remain in scope of the VAT policy. We understand that some parents make the decision to send their child to a private school because of its particular faith ethos, and because they feel that a particular type of school is better able to meet their child’s needs than their place in the state sector. It is the case, however, that all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place should they require one, and of all the faith schools in England, around one third are state funded.

We are also supporting faith groups in their engagement with local authorities to explore options for those private faith schools that are interested in joining the state-funded sector. Where there is a sustainable need, local authorities can bring schools serving particular faith communities into the state sector as voluntary-aided schools, and the school must meet all required standards within the state-funded sector. Since the introduction of the VAT policy, we are aware of one private faith school that has joined the state sector as a voluntary-aided maintained faith school, opening in September 2025.

Furthermore, not all income received by smaller faith schools will be subject to VAT. Some faith schools are likely to be less impacted by changes to private schools tax, where some of their income is derived from other sources, such as voluntary donations or support from religious organisations. That is because VAT is out of scope for donations that are freely given and where there is no reciprocal obligation. That means that some private faith schools may be affected proportionately less than others.

All private schools, including private faith schools, can decide for themselves how to manage the additional cost of VAT. There are a variety of ways in which a school may choose to do that. For example, they may reduce their surpluses or reserves, make savings on non-essential expenditure or, like any VAT-registered organisation, reclaim input VAT on their costs.

[Jim Shannon]

Respectfully, it is not about how the schools can do things; it is about the parents who make that sacrifice so that their children can get to those schools. I suggest—the Minister has it in front of her—a simple solution, which is to introduce a VAT registration threshold that is below the state funding benchmark. I understand that the Minister does not have the final say, but my No. 1 request would be for her to ask the relevant Minister whether they would consider reviewing that idea as a possible solution. I think I gave the figures for the savings and costs. If everybody went to state schools, it would cost even more. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Sir Alec, but that is the point I am trying to make.

[Olivia Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman made his case well in his speech earlier, and he makes it again now. The Government have carefully considered the options that he has put forward today. I have heard all of his points and they have been noted by my officials.

Private schools have steadily increased average fees by 75% in real terms since 2000, and that has not affected pupil numbers. Fee increases can also reflect wider cost pressures beyond VAT and business rates.

The Government are closely monitoring the impact of VAT policy on the private school sector. We remain confident in the estimates made when this policy was introduced, which said that the number of private school closures was expected to remain relatively low and influenced by various factors, not just by the VAT policy. On average, 74 private schools, including independent special schools, have closed per year over the past 20 years. However, only 60 private schools closed in academic year 2024-25, which is the school year that the VAT changes were introduced. That means that school closures announced thus far remain firmly within historical patterns and sit comfortably within our expectations. Indeed, even after the VAT policy came into effect, private schools continued to open in England. In the same time period—between 1 September 2024 and 31 August 2025—106 private schools registered and opened.

We are confident that the state sector can accommodate any additional pupils, including any pupils transferring from private state schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

First of all, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue, and I thank all Members for their contributions.

I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for his contribution; the Liberal Democrat policy on this issue is quite clear, as I knew before the debate—the Conservative policy is also quite clear. The debate focused on faith-based schools, and it is very important that we consider them in this sector, as I believe they are feeling the pain more than most. The solution that has been put forward should be looked at and taken up, if at all possible. The hon. Gentleman said that 100 independent schools closed in the last year and as many as 26 could close in the year to come, and his last remark asked the Government to look seriously at the financial burdens on schools.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), in an intervention, was very clear that he perceived this—I believe it to be the case—to be an attack on education, and I think he referred to choice of education. Again, whenever we have voted specifically on independent schools, I have been very clear where my vote would lie. I ally myself with the hon. Gentleman and what the Conservative party has put forward.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for her passionate contribution; she reaffirmed today what she has said in the Chamber before. She has heard from many parents who, on behalf of their children, want the ability to choose what school they should attend. In my earlier comments, I referred to FORB issues, and I believe what we see today in the United Kingdom is unfortunately an attack on those with faith, whether they are Christians, Muslims or Jews—that is an issue. The hon. Lady also reminded us not to forget the sacrifice that parents make for their children, and she urged us to reverse this policy.

I also thank the Minister for clearly outlining the Government’s commitment to education; she outlined the financial budget and the Government’s focus, as well as the massive SEND issues in both England and Northern Ireland. I know the Minister told me that the Government have considered VAT registration. However, if the funding benchmark is set at £7,690 per pupil, and if all the independent schools were to close, all their pupils would have to go into mainstream schools, which just could not cope. The figures we have presented today indicate that some 270 schools would qualify, and 54,000 pupils would benefit. The revenue loss would be reduced from £1.5 billion to £32 million. I think that those figures indicate an opportunity to review this.

I say that respectfully to the Minister, as it is never my form to attack anyone or run them down—that is just not how I do things. I always try to put forward a solution, and I think we have introduced one today for independent faith schools. I thank all Members and the Minister for their contributions. I also thank Hansard for all the writing they do—I know we all keep them busy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of VAT on independent faith schools.

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for setting the scene. Two minutes—my goodness! How can I get everything into two minutes?

I think of the many graduates who work at Asda— a job they land because there are no full-time entry-level graduate jobs for them. I am aware that student loan repayments are not done in the same way in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland borrowers primarily use plan 1, whereas England has a different system. However, cost of living difficulties mean that borrowers find themselves with problems even if they have what once would have been classified as good jobs.

Because of the time limit, I will give only one example: a junior doctor who, despite getting all As at GCSE and A-level, could not get into Queen’s medical school in Belfast, but was accepted by Edinburgh medical school. That meant a compulsory additional degree within the degree, and an extra year. This clever young lady is now home and working in the trust, and she sent me a copy of her payslip, showing her crippling student loan repayment. She also sent me a copy of her student loan debt—and my breath left my body. This year, she will finish her foundation year 2, and she is not guaranteed a position, so she takes all the on-call hours and locum hours and lives her life worried about her patients and about her debt. She is 25 years of age, living in her sister’s spare room, working 70 hours a week, with a debt of £100,000. Something is wrong with this system. I ask the Minister to consider that.

Our student fees are £4,500, plus maintenance. We need to look at this system. It penalises home students and forces young people to leave their local areas for places that do not have free student accommodation, where they have to pay for someone else’s mortgage over the next 26 years of their lives while paying their own mortgage. No working person should begin their financial journey mired in debt because their local university could not take them and they had to move to a new part of the country and pay for life there. We can do better than that. I look to the Minister to make sure that he does.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Minister for Men and Boys

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for setting the scene incredibly well. He and I are often in debates together. This time, he leads and I follow; it is usually the other way round. I thank him for the information that he shared. We always try to be careful in our focus, but this is really important. He mentioned a couple of things I will refer to in Northern Ireland that I believe are critical.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. I know that she has been to Northern Ireland on a couple of occasions and has had a chance to interact with the relevant Minister. That will be one of my asks of her, in relation to how we move forward.

I stand in support of this proposal. I want to take this opportunity to represent the men and young boys back home—I represent everybody back home, but this debate is focused on a Minister for men and boys. I wish to see everyone treated equally: I want to make it clear that my support for this proposal does not in any way diminish or overlook the challenges faced by women and girls, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth also made clear. It is almost like we are always trying to excuse ourselves, but we just want to make sure that everybody understands where we are coming from. However, it is important to acknowledge the different circumstances, and I am pleased that we can use this debate to do just that.

I have often highlighted the statistics back home in relation to the reported underachievement of working-class Protestant men in Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Strangford and the neighbouring constituency of Belfast East, their underachievement is quite significant. Data for 2018-19 showed that just shy of 38% of Protestant working-class boys eligible for free school meals achieved the benchmark of five GCSEs, compared with 46.7% of Catholic boys. It is an issue. I highlighted it in my previous jobs at the Assembly and at Ards and North Down borough council—Ards borough council, as it was then. Dundonald high school, Movilla high school and Glastry college, where I used to be on the board of governors, are examples of schools that have taken direct action to try to address the issues.

Some people will not have the ability—I say this very carefully—to achieve educational standards. Let us be honest: some people are quite happy to go and work on the farm or work in their dad’s business. That is what some of the young boys round my way have done. They will achieve; they will not fall shy of achieving. It will just be a different type of achievement. But in this day and age, educational standards are so important, and we have to encourage those who do not do that to get involved.

The King’s Trust does fantastic work back home and is involved with the regional colleges. We see advantages from that, but we still have a stubbornly high number of young Protestant males who underachieve, and it indicates a clear gap associated with community background and disadvantage. These patterns have been noted over many years. Bodies such as the Community Relations Council and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland have highlighted the underachievement of Protestant working-class boys as a persistent issue that has not significantly improved. In the meetings that the Minister has had with the Education Minister back home, was there a discussion of how, collectively and together, we can share ideas and do things better?

I am thankful for the Minister taking an interest and visiting Northern Ireland: it shows that she is a lady who wants to bring about change, and I appreciate that. The former Education Minister Robert Halfon was very effective at addressing this issue here in this Chamber, on the mainland; I remember some of his engagement ideas. Has the Minister had the opportunity to see some of his good work? The issue is directly connected to the case for a Minister for men and boys. Decisive action is needed to address the stats, understand the underlying causes and implement measures to improve outcomes.

I also want to discuss a very important topic in relation to men’s health in Northern Ireland. It is the very same issue that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned. In 2023, 221 deaths by suicide were registered in Northern Ireland, of which 77% were males: men make up most of the deaths by suicide. I remember that when I became an MP in 2010, we had had a spate of suicides in Ballynahinch. It shows how society is not coping with things: there were half a dozen young boys from Ballynahinch. Mairisine Stanfield, a minister of the Presbyterian Church, started a hub in Ballynahinch and the whole community came together collectively and tried to address that. Similar things are happening elsewhere. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for males under 50 in Northern Ireland, so it is not always young people, but Northern Ireland spends less per person on mental health than any other UK nation, despite the high need.

I will keep to my time, Mr Twigg, as you asked. Appointing a dedicated Minister for men and boys would be a vital step towards tackling the mental health crisis affecting men across Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister again how we can work better to address that. Young men, particularly those from Protestant communities, face high rates of underachievement, social isolation and pressures that often go unnoticed. A Minister focused on their needs could co-ordinate targeted support, break down the stigma and ensure that their voices are heard in policy decisions. This is about improving and saving lives. I ask that we do all we can to achieve that in the near future.

I will make one final comment. Sometimes, in a crowd of people, there is one person who laughs the loudest and is the most outgoing of all. You might say to yourself, “You know something? That guy’s got no problems.” But when he goes home, that is when the problems start: as my mother used to say, he would hang his fiddle on the door. On the outside he is bright and breezy, but when he goes home he just disappears into his shell. That is why young men need to be helped.

I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth again for enabling us to speak about the issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and from other hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.

I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues. It is a huge pleasure to work with the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys in that role, advancing the wellbeing, safety and happiness of men and boys across the country. The fact that I have the opportunity to work with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) makes it even more thrilling. It is wonderful to work cross-party on something that matters in all our communities, which has been highlighted this afternoon.

It is only when all of us—men and boys, women and girls—are happy, leading by example, and creating a fair, safe and equal society where everybody has the opportunity to prosper, that some of the deep, ingrained issues in our constituencies and daily lives will be fixed. It was a pleasure to hear some of the speeches and comments from Members on both sides of the House, who have passionately and rightly spoken up about the great work in their constituencies and their experiences. It has been a really insightful conversation this afternoon.

It is a sad fact that, as we have heard today, 14 men die by suicide every day—more than 5,000 a year in England and Wales. Families and loved ones are affected, and those men are deeply cared about. The fact that suicide continues to be the largest killer of men under 50 in the UK is a huge cause for concern. The first men’s health strategy for England is extremely welcome, and I will say more on that shortly. The initiatives on the stigma surrounding mental health, particularly for men, are vital, but I was pleased to see support for emergency service workers in the policing reform White Paper, which is welcomed by Samaritans. That is a key step forward, and it will partly help with the issue.

In my constituency role and shadow ministerial roles, I have met some amazing organisations that do so much for men and boys. The charitable area is often the first point of contact for men and boys. Women often have moments, friendships and other things in their lives where there is a natural conversation point. For men, it is very often a health issue that they reach out about—if they do at all—so it is vital that we fund and support those areas. There are organisations such as Movember, MAN v FAT—I will say more on that shortly—the wonderful Men’s Sheds, which I and many of us have in our constituencies, and there is the work of Samaritans. Where there are suicide hotspots and other issues in Sussex, that work really matters. I was delighted, like many of us, to win a Movember award for being a men’s health champion, which now sits proudly in my office. I am delighted to see so many other people winning those.

Hon. Members have rightly spoken about talking of masculinity in a positive way. Positive role models are important, but I wonder why we need an adjective around masculinity. I thank everybody who has taken on points about culture this afternoon.

I said I would return to the men’s health strategy, tackling HIV, prostate cancer and health equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth opened the debate fantastically well; I am proud to call him a friend. His work on this really matters. It is now standard that we have an International Men’s Day debate and fringe events at our party conferences. Those have been as well attended as the Conservative women’s organisation events I am involved in. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I am sure we all do, that it should never be a choice of either/or. It was important that he opened the debate by spelling out why that matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) talked about the key, which is outcomes. Co-ordinated action is a key message from today’s debate. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) expressed strong views and values, many of them sounding very Conservative. I am not sure she would be delighted to hear that. The point about family courts and family breakdown is important, as well as being there for kids and being challenging. Men often want to be there for family, but the process holds them back. It is difficult for men to put their heads above the parapet. Many men want and need to be involved in their children’s lives. The hon. Lady was right to spell that out, having heard from her constituents.

I said I would talk about MAN v FAT. I enjoyed meeting Richard Crick, its director, some time ago. That is an amazing, inclusive programme, which coaches and supports men in their health. He and I, like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and many others, are Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys champions. I have never felt so championing—it is amazing. I am delighted to be mentioned in the same breath as Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. Gareth Southgate’s LinkedIn posts are amazing, offering the best time on social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth thought I was interested in this just because of his work with David Gandy, but I promise I am interested in the whole gamut. That shows the breadth and importance of role models across all sections of society.

I know the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) feels this strongly. Perhaps this Parliament is doing the wrong thing; how about it always trying to do the right thing? In this area, working with role models and more widely, there is an opportunity for all of us. The hon. Member is right that there is a blame game. Where are the role models? Let us have a look at that.

Single men on apps, how does that work? We know of incel culture and the challenges around those who are lost and lonely. We know that loneliness can tip into mental health conditions, so it is right to look at social media. The leader of my party is talking about the under-16 challenge. It is right that we properly address the issue of white working-class boys. Too many young people are being left disillusioned and left behind. That is a fact; let us get on with doing something about it, for example, dealing with online safety and the harms around young children. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland rightly talked about pornography.

We have heard today about men as victims of domestic violence from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I do not believe in using the words domestic abuse and I do not like the term domestic violence. I call it criminality in the home. It does not matter who instigates it; we should deal with it. If it were on the front lawn or down the street, we would deal with it, no matter who is the perpetrator. We need to continue in that vein with that cross-party approach.

My question to the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, is: what is the Government’s position on the culture of men and boys? We have heard about the thought-provoking approach of Gareth Southgate and others. Do the Government believe that masculinity needs an adjective? Mothers of young boys, and indeed this mother of young girls, want all our young people to be supported. Crucially, whether they be feminine or masculine, they need to be happy, particularly our young boys in their masculinity.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, my co-chair in the all-party parliamentary group, mentioned the boy problem. He spoke about excellent role models. One we work with is the amazing Mark Brooks OBE, who is the director of the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys. The hon. Member rightly talked about partnership and fatherhood, and made some typically thoughtful comments.

[Jim Shannon]

Everybody has referred to role models. Young boys look towards a man for a better role model, but we should recognise that a mother can also be a role model in the way she shapes us. When I was a wee boy, I was privileged to have a number of ladies from Ballywalter to guide me. Sometimes the ladies in the house—the mothers, the aunties, the friends—can very much be a role model as well.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and that is why I take such an interest in this area.

The feeling of hopelessness and anger is being exploited, which creates myriad challenges that make the most vulnerable even more vulnerable. We must step up on education, employment, health and aspiration. All of that is impacting hope. Some people in particular sectors, such as farming, are more isolated. It is not okay that our men are not thriving. Hope and confidence need to be in every community. This is truly a cross-party issue.

Kinship Carer Identification

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

Sometimes, a child’s birth parents cannot look after them. Around 100,000 children in the UK are looked after by the state, and most of us are familiar with the concepts of adoption and fostering. But it is estimated that well over 100,000 children in the UK are being raised by members of their extended family, or by friends of their family: they are being cared for by kinship carers. An ever-increasing number of children are now in kinship care, and staying with a family member or friend has a range of benefits over being looked after by the state. Kinship care can reduce trauma, provide valuable stability and help children preserve their sense of identity and connection to their community.

Yet, despite being both widespread and beneficial, kinship care has remained undervalued and under-recognised by our systems. It is astonishing that, as of yet, councils are under no obligation to ensure that potential kinship placements are always explored and assessed for suitability before children become looked after. Yet children who grow up in kinship care are more likely to be kept with their siblings compared with those in foster care, have better social and emotional wellbeing and better long-term physical health, and are more likely to have stable permanent homes, achieve higher levels of employment later in life and report that they feel loved. Making kinship care the first choice rather than the lucky product of chance is a simple change, and I hope the Minister might speak to its pursuit.

There are other ways in which kinship carers could be put on a more equal footing. For example, many would be helped to stay in active employment by being allowed employment leave rights equal to those of parents who are adopting. That is another simple change that could make a big difference.

There is one way in which our systems are very clearly failing children and their dedicated carers that I would like to address. I would like to share some experiences of kinship carers that, sadly, are typical, as they frequently struggle to prove to hospitals, schools, doctors and dentists that they have parental responsibility.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for rightly bringing forward this issue. I spoke to him beforehand and he knows partly what I am going to say. The Minister might be aware of and want to follow the example of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a higher rate of kinship care—31% of looked-after children, compared with England’s 16%. That is largely due to a long-standing cultural emphasis on family placements. There is also the fact that Northern Ireland offers the most consistent support, as all approved kinship foster carers are legally entitled to the same would-be allowance as mainstream foster carers, ranging from £149 to £268 per week. Does the hon. Member agree that, as is often the case, what we are doing in Northern Ireland might be an example of the very thing that he and the Minister wish to see?

Young Children’s Screen Time

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of screen time on young children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy; thank you for your time this morning.

I have always said that I am a dad first and an MP second. My son Robin is three; he is kind, and he is happiest when he is outside playing. I am proud of him every single day. My youngest, Louis, is seven months old, and he is already curious about the world, watching and taking everything in. When this job takes me away from them, it hurts. One thing is very clear: when I am at home, I need to be a properly present dad.

I want to be honest with the House: there were weeks when my phone told me I was spending more than six hours a day on it. Even on weekends, when family time should be protected, it was four or five hours. When kids are young, we never get that time back, and every hour counts. Smartphones, though, are a feat of human engineering and have been deliberately designed to take our attention, quiet and relentlessly. I had to make a deliberate change for my two boys: cutting my screen time down, choosing to be on the floor building Brio—even making a Duplo Parliament—rather than being half present and half scrolling. Present fatherhood starts with all of us putting the phone down.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. From the persona that he presents in the Chamber, I have no doubt that he is a good dad, and very responsive to his children. What is undoubted is that, when used correctly, digital technology has positive effects, but use near bedtime or overuse is leading teachers to highlight that pupils are coming to school “wrecked” or tired, and excessive use is linked to lower academic performance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must help parents and carers find a balance in the use of screen time? I made that very request in the press today.

[Mr Charters]

Parents do need a bit of support when it comes to guidance and advice around what is excessive, particularly when it comes to unsupervised screen time.

Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of CCTV for safeguarding purposes in nurseries and early years providers.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I have now been a public servant for 15 years, initially as a local councillor and then as a local MP for nearly 11 years. A lot of people who see me doing my job will know about the bits relating to voting, legislation and making decisions on national policy, but most will not know about my casework. That casework is often on matters of life or death, whether helping women fleeing domestic violence, people fleeing persecution, or my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was imprisoned in Iran for a crime she did not commit.

Some of the most harrowing examples of my casework have been about children. Very early in my career, I dealt with a young boy who was abducted from his mother, and taken overseas by his estranged father. I then dealt with a man who was grooming his step-daughter, and had to step in to help get him away from her. Finally, I have dealt with parents whose children have been abused, either sexually or through neglect or cruelty, in nurseries. It is very difficult to put into words what those casework surgeries are like, because they are every parent’s worst nightmare. Parents have put their child in a nursery at a time when they are unable to speak, walk or talk and entrusted it to look after them, only to find that that very place, rather than being a safe haven, has abused that trust, and that their children have been subjected to violent acts or sexual cruelty.

For six years, I was a shadow Minister for early years and early education, and I am an absolute champion for the sector. I want to emphasise that every time I spoke to early years educators and practitioners, safeguarding was the focus of all their work and they wanted to make sure children were protected. Many of the conversations I had were about strengthening security so that nurseries could do their job properly, whether that was through the mandatory two person per child rule, ensuring that Ofsted can examine digital devices or having a proper whistleblowing system in case anything problematic was happening. In particular, those conversations were about whether mandatory CCTV should be a safeguarding tool for nurseries across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for all she has done over the years. In the short time I have been here, I have found her to be assiduous, committed and dedicated on all these issues. As she knows, I have tried to support her in all her campaigns. Today, she is talking about another massive campaign, and I commend her for it. Child safety is core and imperative, and every one of us—including me, as a father and grandfather—worries about our children and grandchildren. CCTV could be the norm in affluent areas, but does hon. Lady agree that all those who provide care, in all areas, should be able to access affordable systems to meet this need? There is a cost—a financial factor—but it is really important that the No. 1 priority is safety.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for all my campaigns throughout the years. He has hit on a point I will definitely comment on. However, as he said, we cannot put a price on a child’s safety.

I said that I have been a public servant for 15 years, but I have been involved in the world of politics for 25 years, and I know that campaigns and legislation cannot be done on a whim. We have to look at all sides of the argument, which is why I spoke to a lot of the nursery managers and early years practitioners in my constituency before the debate to ask what they thought about a mandatory policy of installing CCTV in nurseries.

Legitimate concerns were raised, and I want to discuss them because we need to be aware of the obstacles we will face if we want to implement this policy. One of those legitimate arguments concerned price and diverting resources. Another question was whether someone would end up exploiting what we were trying to do to safeguard children. For example, would the CCTV be hacked? Would someone use artificial intelligence on that material in a manner we would not want and distribute it illegally? Those are legitimate concerns, which I will address, because if we want to change the landscape, we have to tackle the obstacles head-on, including the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Educational Outcomes: Disadvantaged Boys and Young Men

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. He is absolutely right, and this is a massive issue in Northern Ireland, as I said to him earlier. There are a number of young Protestant males who do not achieve, are disadvantaged when it comes to free school meals and come nowhere close to achieving educational standards. Our Government back home have put a policy in place to try to address that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should work on this matter collectively with the regional Administration? If there is a disadvantage, not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, it is time to work on that together.

[Alistair Strathern]

The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the particular challenge faced by disadvantaged young men. While there has rightly been a lot of focus on challenges holding back all boys and men across education—the Education Committee was due to hold an inquiry into that during the previous Parliament—the compounding impacts of socioeconomic inequality and gender are often less explored.

Local Authority Children’s Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for setting the scene incredibly well. Our children’s services are so important, and the story he told has been well illustrated in the papers. It is almost inconceivable how that young child went through such brutality and violence. The story moved us all, and I thank him for sharing it with this Chamber; it is important for what we need to achieve. It could have been prevented, which is why this issue is incredibly important.

Local children’s services are essential to support, protect and improve the wellbeing of children, young people and families before any minor or moderate problems escalate into crisis situations. The early help approach has important benefits for parents and the community. I always try to give a Northern Ireland perspective to debates. I am mindful that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I like to add some comments to illustrate the problems we have and some of the helpful things we are doing. I will try to be on the positive side.

In Northern Ireland, and especially in my Strangford constituency, numerous services go above and beyond at all levels to serve children. The Ards Arena youth resource centre provides activities for confidence building, peer interaction and safe community engagement. There is also multi-agency support through the Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership, which brings together statutory, voluntary and community organisations to improve outcomes for children and families.

That is not to mention the Newtownards child social services team based in James Street in the town centre of Newtownards, the major town of my constituency. I know many of the staff personally, and the contribution they make to the lives of young people does not go unnoticed. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) referred to staff and what they do. It is important that we remember the many staff members who make fantastic contributions, and their focus must be on the perpetrators, as he rightly said, to ensure that issues are addressed.

As of 31 March last year, 22,243 children were known to social services as a child in need, which means they are assessed as requiring services to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development, or to prevent significant impairment. The pressure on local children’s services is intense, and support can range from marital break-ups to missing children and children with deteriorating mental health, or even children who have had to be removed from the family home. Some of those are desperate cases that certainly worry us.

Protecting children’s wellbeing and ensuring the necessary support is there before a crisis is critical to ensuring that young people feel safe and do not reach a point where they require an emergency service. We must strengthen families and provide services to keep young people’s lives stable. Research suggests that preventive services, community youth centres and support programmes improve health, education and social outcomes, so let us do our bit to ensure that those services are sustainable and fit for purpose.

Local support and children’s services play a proactive role in ensuring that children in my constituency and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can thrive. Modern society and social issues can be hard enough for young people to navigate. The pressures on young children and families are incredible, so we must ensure they have the support they need. I want to do that, other right hon. and hon. Members want to do that, and I know the Minister wants to do it too.

I look to the Minister for a commitment to children’s services across the United Kingdom. Perhaps he can have some discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly to see how we can do things better together.

Education Funding: Distribution

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the distribution of education funding, because it goes to the heart of what kind of education system we want. As Liberal Democrats, we want every child to be provided with the opportunity to succeed and reach their full potential. However, I am sure that the Government and MPs from across the Chamber would agree that the current system is not working as well as it should.

Now is the time to tackle the historical unfair distribution of education funding. Every child should have access to the same resources and opportunities, regardless of where they live or their level of need. That unfairness in funding across local authority areas shapes what local schools can offer and how quickly children receive support, and ultimately affects whether families experience education as a source of opportunity or a source of constant struggle. That is wrong.

The national funding formula and the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant were intended to bring fairness and transparency to school funding, but historical proxy factors remain embedded within them. Those factors lock in funding patterns from decades ago, protecting some areas—regardless of how they have changed—while capping others, even as pupil numbers rise and needs become more complex.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is absolutely right to bring this incredibly important issue to the House. It does not matter where we are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the problems are the same. Over the past couple of years as an elected representative, I have seen a rise in the number of people with special needs requirements, while schools are deteriorating and need work done. These problems seem to be a burden upon education authorities. Does she agree that now is perhaps the time for the Minister and the Government to review how they allocate their funding? By doing so, it could bring about something positive for all schools.

[Pippa Heylings]

I agree with the hon. Member. It is exactly why we need this debate at the national level. I recognise the work undertaken by the f40 fairer funding campaign, which has provided comparative historical data for the whole country, exposing the huge variations in funding allocations per pupil by local authority. Nowhere is that unfair disparity more clear than in my constituency. Cambridgeshire remains in the bottom quartile nationally for the dedicated schools grant and for high needs block funding per pupil. We rank 133rd out of 151 local authorities in 2025-26. That ranking has been the same for more than a decade, despite the unprecedented growth in Cambridgeshire. The consequences are stark.

If Cambridgeshire schools were funded to the same level as Lincolnshire—a shire county funded close to the national median—they would receive an additional £23.8 million every single year. That equates to roughly £118,000 a year for a typical primary school—think of that. Equally, if Cambridgeshire were funded to the same level as neighbouring Peterborough, schools would receive around £33 million more annually. That is the scale of the gap we are talking about, and it is impossible to justify. This chronic underfunding interacts directly with the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland there is only a 52% uptake in flu vaccinations. There are two reasons for that: first, parents want to be sure that it is okay and safe for their children; and secondly, schools sometimes show reluctance to let it happen. Will the Minister share the policy that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) just outlined with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, to ensure that we can do better in Northern Ireland?

[Olivia Bailey]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I will be meeting with the Minister he mentioned later this week on a visit to Northern Ireland, and I will be happy to discuss this matter with him.