Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The evidence is still more profound, is it not? Screen time is now a profound problem across the board. This is not just about phones; it is about all kinds of devices. We now know not only that it affects children’s confidence in communicating, but that their cerebral capacity is being altered over time.

I hope that during the consultation the Government will look more broadly at the issue of screen time, because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), many parents are yet to understand this as clearly as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State most certainly does—and the Minister is gradually coming to terms with it. I hope that the Government will seize the initiative, and send the very clear message from this place that children and screen time are not happy bedfellows and we really must return to a more traditional way of bringing up the next generation.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is correct. We are involved in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government have taken some steps in the right direction—their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good—but they need to finish the job. They need to get smartphones out of schools, and they need to ban children from social media. It is the right thing to do, it is what the evidence shows, and it really will make a difference.

Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children access to the very platforms from which they profit. They know what we know: it is not safe. The children will always try to be on the sites for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in the House. A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the Labour party will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children.

If Labour Members will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to the families who are here today—parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children—tragically, it is too late for that—but they are fighting so that this does not happen to anyone else’s children. I am in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are, and I am here for them.

I am here for Ellen. This week marks four years since she lost her son Jools, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she has endured. She believes that he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge. I am here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died at the age of just 13. She believes that he, too, was attempting a TikTok challenge. I am here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I am here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died, just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children.

Those are just some of the dozen or so parents in the Gallery today. Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month, the group grows. This does not just happen to other people’s children; it can happen to any of our children. It must stop, and we have the power to stop it today. I urge Labour Members to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act.

Yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok. He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK schoolchildren. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during livestreams that can later be converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income. 

In 2024, a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms to search for, view or share child sexual abuse material. A separate 2026 study, commissioned by Ofcom, found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered such material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. That is why the Government’s consultation is so wrong-headed. I am not even joking when I say that their consultation cites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because they can post dance videos. What I have stated today obviously renders that absurd, given the harm caused, but even posting a dance video is very dangerous. Let me explain why, as the Government clearly do not understand.

When young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way they get approval is not internally, but externally. Children quickly learn that “likes” equal approval. They learn that attention brings status. And too often, they discover that sexualised content attracts the most attention of all. That reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time posting dance videos on social media, especially from a young age, they begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others, rather than their own judgment. Their confidence declines, and seeking approval becomes habitual.

Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Dr Davies, who leads the charity Papaya Talks. She explained how, over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth. It is not just about posting dance videos, and to casually put that as a benefit in the consultation means that the Government do not understand what they are dealing with. 

I welcome Lords amendment 17B and the Government providing some movement through their amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 102 and 106. The introduction of PAN is a welcome step, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, which does not guarantee that local authorities will not shrink good schools. The Government need to strengthen this provision and put the matter beyond doubt. 

Turning to phones in schools, Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106B states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance”.

The Minister outlined the plethora of actions the Government are taking, but I ask them, for the love of God, to put the guidance on to a statutory footing. They really are taking all possible steps not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.

--- Later in debate ---

The Prime Minister has said that we will “have a fight” in taking on technology companies, but, sadly, that fight is going to have to start with him. The only person standing in the way of a social media ban is him. He has already asked Labour Members to vote against it once, but tonight he is going to march them through the Lobby against it again. I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in the Bill.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way. She is making the profound point—and this should concern every Member of this House across the normal party divides—that the abnormal is becoming routine. Growing up has never been easy and moving from childhood to adulthood is always a challenge, but when someone’s sense of what is normal is altered beyond recognition, it becomes impossible to navigate the vicissitudes that are an inevitable part of maturing, and that is where we are. This House took 25 years to regulate the internet at all—far too long—over successive Governments, but now the whole House can come together to protect our children from this menace.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I have said, we are in a fight for childhood, and I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in this Bill and give us a timeframe by which they are going to do it.

I am not giving up, and the parents in the Gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift:

“You want a fight? You found it”.

Labour MPs will find that, with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded, and we will not give up, because children deserve better.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I am delighted to address the 13 amendments sent back to us by the other place this evening. The volume of Lords amendments reflects the strong feelings in both Houses about the deficiencies in the Bill, but there is a chance tonight to make change for the better. At the moment, the Government seem to do their utmost to oppose anything that they did not come up with—not on merit, but because they have retreated into a tribal bunker in which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. May I suggest that this is not serving the Government very well?

Let us take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First, she told me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was a “gimmick”. Then, the Prime Minister slammed it as “unnecessary”. The Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, but she said that more guidance can fix it. Finally, she is now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, in Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver one. I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but this is getting ridiculous.

If the Government cannot properly argue the merits of their case, we get bad legislation. We had that problem with the Bill when it first came in. The Government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms—the very same freedoms that have delivered improved school standards in this country. Indeed, we now have the absurdity of the schools White Paper rightly saying that academies are the driving force behind school improvement, while in this Bill the Government are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Do not try to make any sense of it—it is not possible.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend allow me?

[Laura Trott]

With pleasure.

[Sir John Hayes]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making the case for banning mobile phones in schools and for restricting access to social media. We do not need more discussion or consultation, and we do not need more research, because research already shows the harm that those things are doing. By delaying and prevaricating, we are robbing children of the chance of a healthy life, so let us just move on and do what so obviously needs to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

There is now overwhelming evidence that addictive algorithms and harmful content are deeply damaging to our children’s wellbeing. We Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 38, which would ban social media for under-16s, although our preference is for online regulation with film-style age rating of user-to-user services.

While the Government dither and delay, children across the country are being exposed to deeply harmful content every single day. I have spoken many times about the saturation of pro-eating disorder content that children view on social media, but the harms do not stop there. Social media is increasingly acting as a marketplace for the illicit drug trade. Researchers at the University of Bath have found that up to a quarter of vapes confiscated in secondary schools contained the deadly drug Spice. The Government’s own data reveals an eightfold increase in young people entering treatment for Spice in 2024-25.

How are young people getting their hands on these dangerous drugs? Through social media. Researchers have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of Spice, using TikTok as a means of communicating and advertising to children. Ofcom agreed that the content is “priority illegal content”. However, it declined to use its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023. We are facing a shocking reality. Children, right now, can buy the most dangerous prison drugs on mainstream social media: Snapchat, TikTok, Telegram. If Ofcom will not step up and the Government will not make it, what choice do we have but to prevent children accessing these platforms altogether?

The Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 38 and 39 completely miss the point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) outlined. The Government must act now to stop children being exposed to illegal and harmful content online. We cannot allow endless inquiries, consultations and delays to stand in the way.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will not; I am sorry.

More than 40 charities and experts support this approach. Our constituents have made their views clear too. I have been inundated with emails, the overwhelming majority of which support a ban. Now is the time for action. The Government could accept this cross-party amendment and give children an escape route from the dark corners of social media.

Educational Outcomes: Disadvantaged Boys and Young Men

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

The hon. Member puts the point incredibly well, and I hope to be able to touch later on some of the powerful schemes available to already deliver some of these role models. They do not always have to be parents; that is not always going to be available for every child we seek to support.

When we consider these vulnerable young men, it is sometimes little wonder that they feel mistrustful and alienated from the system. They have reasons for that. All too often, media and social discourse can paint them sometimes as problems or, even worse, as abusers in waiting rather than recognising the real strength and assets they could be and often are to our communities. Indeed, research by Boys’ Impact found that those narratives can be incredibly pervasive in media commentary about young men’s achievements and, worse still, are believed by a significant minority of teaching staff, too, with all the impact we would then expect in terms of how comfortable young people feel in those classrooms, and their sense of belonging and willingness to engage.

We have to put this right. We need to put a strength-based relational model connecting with young men across the education system back at the heart of our work. There have been some really good examples of delivering that already, not just those already mentioned by hon. Members. It has been a real privilege to work with groups such as Football Beyond Borders and Beyond Equality to see at first hand the inspiring work they are already doing in schools across the country to demonstrate the impact that relational practice can have, giving young men space to define and talk through on their own terms what it is to be a man in Britain today, and what their aspirations for a good, progressive life could look like.

It is little wonder, seeing the incredibly moving and powerful impact that these interventions can have, that they have been held by so many school leaders, but the really important thing to note is that these interventions are scalable. Boys’ Impact has shown through its 16 hubs across the country, working with hundreds of educational leaders and organisations, that by rolling out strength-based relational approaches to working with disaffected and disadvantaged young boys, we can have really powerful impacts, improving attainment, attendance and a sense of belonging. We should consider and learn from that as part of our wider approach to curriculum reform and the schools White Paper.

It should not just be the mindset that we need to change. We also need to learn from specific interventions that can have a meaningful impact. Other Members have rightly highlighted the importance of role models. When working with disaffected young men, we know that family figures, father figures and community figures can have powerful impacts in transforming their life chances for the better. That is why we should look to learn from models like Australia’s powerful dads’ clubs, which convened dads across 250 schools in Australia to provide greater support, greater engagement in their child’s learning and activities such as read-along clubs and after-school sessions, which help support fathers to take a more active role in their child’s development, with all the powerful impacts based on the Fatherhood Institute’s work that we would expect for that young person’s attainment, achievement and sense of self.

It is important to recognise that not every young person will have a father figure available to them, but the encouraging thing is that it should not matter when it comes to establishing positive male role models. Lads Need Dads is already doing inspiring mentoring work in schools across the country to show the value of bringing in volunteers to work as peer mentors for young men, particularly with a focus on literacy. At a time when we know that reading for pleasure is far less common among young men than it is among women, and literacy is so important for underpinning so much of success in early years and beyond, those types of interventions have shown that it can be a powerful tool in driving up literacy and engagement with reading among young men, and also improving young men’s own sense of self and belonging by providing them with that important male role model as an effective peer mentor.

The Government’s wider work to encourage more male role models in early years settings and primary settings is to be encouraged. We know the gender disparity in workforces has been allowed to fly under the radar for far too long, so I am glad to see it achieving a central role in the new workforce strategy, but we need to build on that. We also need to recognise that there are a wider range of factors that can sometimes hold back boys’ success. As Richard Reeves put it, sometimes when dealing with young people, particularly at an early age, rather than seeking to address their needs we can simply see them as “malfunctioning girls”.

The Institute for the Science of Early Years rightly points out that when young people, particularly very young people, lack access to the exercise and activities they sometimes need to burn off steam as young men, it can lead to their misbehaving in ways that are too often construed as misbehaviour, rather than actually just simple failures to self-regulate. Again, there are lots of interventions in early years and primary settings that are leading the way in showing how we can address this. Greater use of outdoor active learning and daily miles have been shown in primary and earlier settings to help improve boys’ sense of belonging, behaviour and engagement. As we think further about how we can forensically break down these barriers for young boys’ achievement, I would like to make sure we consider those tools, too, as part of our work in early years and primary settings to make sure we really are setting up every young man to succeed.

I could go on for far longer than I have time for today, talking about examples of great practice. It has been inspiring to hear so many examples from colleagues in the room. There is a wealth of evidence out there. It is deeply compelling about the need to act, so we have simply no excuse not to. I hope I have left the Chamber today in no doubt about the urgency of the issue and the need to address it, but also no doubt about the fact that it is a deeply progressive cause that Labour colleagues should feel a real strength in championing. It is central to our mission to break down barriers for disadvantaged young people who would otherwise be set up to succeed, which is the underlying reason why I am a Labour politician. We have a great chance to put things right. Inspiring colleagues from across the House are looking to support us, and I look forward to working with the Minister to make sure we succeed.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

We will now hear brief contributions from a couple of Back Benchers who have gone through the proper process and notified both the mover of the motion and the Minister.

SEND Provision: Kent

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The stories that my hon. and learned Friend is recounting completely match those that I get in my inbox and hear in my surgeries—these stories are repeated across the county. My constituency has a higher than the national, regional and county average of people with learning disability needs, and we are just not getting the support we need.

I want to flag two things. The SEND team at the council is extremely unresponsive to parents and schools and, indeed, to me and my office—I am sure that is true for colleagues, too. There is also a pattern of schools saying they can care for a child but being turned down. That is happening over and over again, and people are being forced to travel many miles across the county in a way that is simply not possible for children with this level of need.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short—but I am a kind and generous Chairman.

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend’s experience is similar to mine. My postbag reflects a kind of ongoing unresponsiveness, which results in people feeling that they are just lost in the system. That is entirely unacceptable.

On a slightly different theme, for SEND children who wish to access a grammar school education in Kent, KCC seems to be refusing requests for extra time for the 11-plus test, in breach of the Equality Act 2010, and without giving any reasons. It is the law that extra time must be granted if a reasonable adjustment is required under that Act, yet Kent’s special access panel unfairly puts roadblocks in the way, stifling opportunities for our young people. The failures stretch beyond Folkestone and Hythe; they blight every corner of Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said. This is county-wide neglect, shrouded in excuses.

I am not blind to the scale of the challenges, but I will not excuse the years of inaction and mismanagement, first under the Tories and now under Reform UK.

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely why we need wholesale change in the system, which is what the Government are preparing to consult on. We will of course listen carefully to the proposals when they come forward.

Let me talk briefly about the system in Kent. Nationally, the demand for SEND support has grown, and EHCP requests have surged by 140% since 2015, as per the National Audit Office. In 2022, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission handed down an improvement notice for nine glaring SEND failings in Kent. KCC scrambled to implement an accelerated progress plan and, after Government scrutiny in 2024, the notice was lifted. But still: where are the real improvements? My postbag tells a starkly different story.

I must raise concerns about the safety valve programme. The 2021 deal between the Department for Education and KCC was supposed to plug deficits, but in practice it has often made it even harder for families to access vital support. In areas like Kent with safety valve deals, EHCPs have become harder to obtain and parents are forced to jump over ever-higher hurdles. The priorities of the safety valve programme mean that financial savings are trumping the needs of children in Kent.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Neil Duncan Jordan.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Oh, no—he is slightly older than me. [Laughter.] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

My constituency borders Kent, and we also have a safety valve programme, as well as an Ofsted judgment of “systemic failings”, so children in my constituency, who cross that border, experience similar issues. Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to look, as part of the reforms, at how these issues work on a cross-borough basis when children live in one borough but use schools in another?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) to forgive me; I should have recognised that the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) is nowhere near as glamorous or youthful as him. The hon. Gentleman can put that on his leaflets if he likes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the hon. Lady the courtesies and behaviour in the House. If you are going to name another Member, you should notify them in advance. Did you do that?

[Caroline Voaden]

As far as I am aware, we have done.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Right. I suggest you drop the hon. Member for Clacton a note to say that you raised him in the House and copy it to me. That would be wonderful.

[Caroline Voaden]

I think my office might already have done that. I will check.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Excellent. I call the shadow Minister, Saqib Bhatti.

Educational Attainment of Boys

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

Absolutely—that is a point well made, and I hope that we will have more contributions of that nature during the debate.

Boys are not the problem: it is the system that is failing them. Of course we need to help boys to develop empathy, respect for those who are different, self-control, and awareness about how their words and actions affect others, but can we please be more careful not to tell boys that they are, by nature, toxic, or that, in 2025, they are privileged simply by being male, when many feel anything but that? They feel undervalued, distrusted and anxious that they will never live up to society’s expectations.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me to do so by the character of his insight. It is brave and right of him to deconstruct the nonsense about toxic masculinity, and to emphasise that white working-class boys, of the kind that are prevalent in his constituency, are particularly disadvantaged by a system that has underestimated, indeed neglected, their needs. He mentioned NEETs. As an education Minister, I did my best to address that issue, but successive Governments have done insufficient. I congratulate him on bringing this debate and on what he has said in it.

[Sam Rushworth]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I hope he will continue to contribute to the debate.

Boys feel undervalued, distrusted and anxious that they will not live up to society’s expectations. Sam Fender, an icon of the north-east, recently put it:

“We are very good at talking about privileges—white, male or straight privilege. We rarely talk about class, though. And that’s a lot of the reason that all the young lads are seduced by demagogues like Andrew Tate. They’re being shamed all the time and made to feel like they’re a problem. It’s this narrative being told to white boys from nowhere towns. People preach to some kid in a pit town in Durham who’s got—”

nothing—

“and tell him he’s privileged? Then Tate tells him he’s worth something? It’s seductive.”

We cannot leave that space to be filled by online influencers selling toxic answers. We have to offer something better—belonging, purpose and hope.

Evidence shows that boys thrive when, rather than being treated as a problem, they are trusted within a culture of high expectations, when we set them up to succeed, and when they know that their learning is relevant and will take them somewhere. The coded message in our current curriculum is that society values academic excellence over development of technical skills and know-how. It is as if we have replaced the 11-plus with a 16-plus exam, where those who get good GCSE results go on to sit A-levels, which are given higher esteem, and those who fail are pushed towards vocational courses, as though those skills are lesser.

A good example of a school that is bucking that trend, which is attended by some of the young people from my constituency, is the University Technical College South Durham, in Newton Aycliffe, which Ofsted recently rated as one of the happiest schools in the country. I have met some of its students. They all have familiar stories about how they were previously suspended and in trouble all the time at school, but when they attended the UTC they found purpose. They build relationships, promote leadership and make a child feel known, and that works—the children are thriving, boys included.

Elsewhere, schools working with the Yes He Can programme or applying the “Taking Boys Seriously” framework from Ulster University are closing gaps and rebuilding trust with disengaged boys, not coddling but understanding them—I looked up to see where the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was when I mentioned Ulster, and he is not in his place. Other examples are Hays Travel and Nissan, which will take young people from the age of 14 to give them vocational work experience.

I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy. It is really exciting that, for the first time in a long time, we are seeing a real effort to create meaningful career pathways into the sorts of secure jobs that young people in the north-east used to be able to aspire to.

Another good example is the plan to build 1.5 million homes. We know that we cannot do that unless we have more skilled young people coming into those professions. Last week, I spent half a day with some young apprentices from Bishop Auckland college bricklaying with Gleeson Homes in my constituency. It was fabulous to see these young men who really had a sense of direction: they knew that in a few years’ time, they would be earning good salaries and able to build good family lives.

[Sam Rushworth]

One hundred per cent. That is another good example of why we need to create those pathways.

Let me say that I am not calling for us to stop encouraging young men to go to university. I am a working-class lad, and I was much better suited to going the academic route than I was to working as a mechanic or something, as those who have seen me put up a shelf will attest. I am calling for greater parity of esteem, respect for all skills and earlier opportunities for people to feel valued, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) just pointed out.

[Sir John Hayes]

I will praise the hon. Gentleman again. He is absolutely right about really valuing practical learning. I come from a similar background to him; I was not clever enough to be practical, so I had to become an academic. Re-establishing the idea that vocational, practical accomplishment has at least equal prowess to academic learning—I think it has greater prowess, actually—is fundamental. May I add one other example, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker? The hon. Gentleman will know of the Men’s Sheds movement, which is typically for older men. I visited the men’s shed in Long Sutton, of which I am president, and there was a youth shed bringing young people into a male community, allowing boys to share, learn and grow.

[Sam Rushworth]

What a great example. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.

I will speed through the rest of my speech, because I am conscious of time and the contributions of other people. We want young boys to go to university too. I declare an interest: I used to tutor for the Brilliant Club in schools in the north-east. That was about young people whose parents may not have gone to university and helping them to have that aspiration and realise what they could do.

On early years, as I said at the beginning, a lot of attainment is set before the age of five—we know that even by the age of five, boys are behind girls. This Government are doing some significant things that are important in that regard, including the Best Start family hubs, which were announced just this week. Those are about not just children, but parents being able to access support. As a parent myself, I know that I raised my seven-year-old son much better than I raised my 18-year-old son, because I made so many mistakes in knowing how to help him. Too often, I tried to use a carrot-and-stick approach and did not understand well enough how to help him to reflect on his behaviour, although they are both wonderful boys.

The free breakfast clubs initiative is about so much more than just breakfast. I recently visited Cockfield primary school in my constituency, where, since it was an early adopter of the scheme, attendance went from about 10 or 12 children to 60 children every morning. I met children who used to have difficulty being on time or who were regularly absent, and I was told how they are now coming and thriving. A wise headteacher there was using that scheme not just to feed the children, but to engage them in meaningful activities that help develop their social and emotional skills.

Before I was elected, I was a governor at Benfieldside primary school in County Durham, where we introduced a specialist social and emotional learning programme. That was about helping children to develop so-called 21st century skills, such as emotional self-regulation, recognising what they are feeling, self-awareness, social awareness, empathy and how to build healthy relationships. The teachers reported remarkable differences within a year of the programme’s introduction, and parents were coming in and saying, “Something is happening to my child, because they are so much calmer and better able to manage their behaviour.”

There are real opportunities for us to grasp this issue in the breakfast clubs, in free school meal provision and in the Best Start family hubs. This is about not just increased funding, but content. If I have one ask of the Minister today, it is to give 30 minutes of her time, either by herself or with officials, to meet with me and people I used to work with in this field who have developed these really useful tools that can be introduced in any classroom setting.

I believe we urgently need a national strategy for boys’ attainment that is cross-party, evidence-based and rooted in fairness. It should invest in teacher training that recognises gender bias and engages boys more effectively. It should embed social and emotional learning throughout the curriculum, especially in early years and transition stages. It should expand vocational and technical pathways, recognising different routes to success. It should promote leadership opportunities for boys in school life and, most importantly, ensure transparent, gender-disaggregated data to hold ourselves accountable nationally and locally.

This is a debate not just about attainment, but about dignity. It is about who we see and who we invest in. I do not want boys in Bishop Auckland, Bootle, Barry or Basingstoke to feel that the system has no place for them; I want them to feel seen, supported and believed in, because when we raise the floor for those who are struggling, we lift the whole classroom. Let us act with some of the clarity and courage we showed a generation ago for girls—our boys and our society deserve nothing less.

Water Safety Education

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I join Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing a debate on this incredibly important topic in this very timely week and on his powerful opening speech. I was truly saddened to hear of the deaths of his constituent Joe Abbess and Sunnah Khan at Bournemouth beach in June 2023. I extend my heartfelt condolences to their families and pay tribute to Vanessa Abbess for her campaigning.

I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for paying such thorough tribute to all Members for their contributions. If I am honest, he has saved me the task, as he did real credit to the widespread and important contributions that have been made. A number of Members present are clearly working very hard in Parliament on water safety issues, and it is a real honour to work with them. I welcome the engagement from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen on this topic and wish him every success in his new role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety education.

By holding this debate, we alert more people to the issue of water safety, and we spread understanding of the dangers of water, particularly in this hot weather. As mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), we must remember those who have been affected. There have been many names mentioned and many tragic stories, and by remembering them today, we save lives and prevent tragedies from happening to others. I want to put on record how sorry I am to hear about Serren Bennet, who is still missing from Redcar beach. My thoughts go out to her family and friends and to the emergency services, who will be working incredibly hard to find her.

This is a timely debate, as we mark the Royal Life Saving Society UK’s Drowning Prevention Week. I am pleased to support this important campaign. Each year, it reminds us of the sobering truth that drowning is one of the leading causes of accidental death in the UK, and children remain a very vulnerable group. As parents, carers and educators, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that every child understands the fundamentals of water safety. By having conversations with children about water safety and providing practical learning, we can equip children with the knowledge and skills to recognise danger, know how to respond in an emergency and enjoy water safely, which is fundamentally what we want for children. Schools have a vital role in achieving this aim.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have known her since she first came to the House, and she knows that she has my respect and regard. Swimming is critical. It is true that people who can swim still get into trouble, but if someone cannot swim at all, they are at much greater risk. Will she work with colleagues across the House, including me in respect of Deepings leisure centre, to make sure that there are good swimming facilities across the whole of our nation?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Member is right to recognise how fundamental swimming is, but it is really important to recognise that it is not enough, as has come across very strongly in this debate. But being able to swim is the foundation that every child should have. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it takes a cross-Government effort to make sure that we have the facilities that children and everybody else can use to learn how to swim.

The national curriculum for PE, as has been noted, includes mandatory requirements on swimming and water safety at primary school. As has been acknowledged, pupils should be taught to swim 25 metres unaided, to perform a range of strokes, and to perform safe self-rescue in different water-based situations. Academies and free schools are not currently required to follow the national curriculum, but they do have to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was introduced in December 2024 and is making its way through the House, places a requirement on all state-funded schools, including academies, to teach the national curriculum and will, once implemented, extend the requirement to teach swimming and water safety to all state-funded schools.

Data from Sport England’s active lives survey reported in 2024 that 95.2% of state primary schools surveyed reported that they did provide swimming lessons. We want all pupils to have the opportunity to learn to swim. Support is available, as has been highlighted, through the PE and sport premium, and a range of guidance and support is available from sector organisations. We are working really closely with sector experts, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Swim England, to ensure that all schools have access to high-quality resources to provide swimming and water safety lessons to their students.

I was therefore delighted to announce last week that the PE and sport premium would continue at £320 million for the upcoming academic year. Schools can use their premium funding to provide teacher training and top-up swimming and water safety lessons for pupils if they still need additional support to reach the standard required in the national curriculum after they have completed their core swimming and water safety lessons.

Then, alongside water safety and PE lessons, schools also currently integrate water safety into their PSHE programmes, equipping students with an understanding of risk and the knowledge required to make safe, informed decisions. The water safety code provides a foundation for water safety education, providing simple, easy-to-remember information that helps keep people safe. That is why we are working to ensure that teaching pupils the water safety code at primary and secondary school will feature in our new RHSE statutory guidance, which will be published shortly. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and many others who expressed concern today.

During my time as Chair of the Petitions Committee, when I sat on the Opposition side of the House, I worked really closely on water safety, alongside Rebecca Ramsay, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, who tragically lost her son Dylan in 2011. So I am really pleased now to be in a position where I can help deliver better water safety education in schools and really make further, meaningful progress on this issue, so that no more families lose a child in such circumstances.

In 2024 the Department launched its independent curriculum and assessment review, chaired by Becky Francis CBE, to shape a curriculum that is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative for learners from five to 18. The interim report, published in March, rightly recognises the growing challenges that schools face in prioritising subjects like PE, particularly at key stage 4, and the lack of sport opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds. So I really want to thank members of the National Water Safety Forum education group for their thoughtful contributions to the panel’s call for evidence. The review is considering a wide range of evidence. We are really keen to work with the sector, not only on what will be included in the curriculum, but on how, as a Government, we can support its implementation so that we have high-quality standards across all schools. Every child deserves the best start in life, no matter their background or ability, and it is our mission to ensure that we do everything we can to achieve that. No child should miss out on the opportunity to learn how to keep themselves safe in and around water.

Last month I was pleased to announce a grant of up to £300,000 a year to the consortium led by Youth Sport Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, a programme to upskill teachers to deliver high-quality and inclusive PE, sport and physical activity to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Inclusion 2028 will provide inclusive swimming and water lessons. Two hundred young water safety champions will be trained to promote water safety to their peers. Seven new online resources will be created. The consortium will work with disability sport organisations, and nine inclusive school swimming specialists are being delivered to help deliver continuing professional development to staff at schools and leisure centres.

SEND Funding

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury]

I am sorry to hear about Monty’s story and I fear that we will hear stories like his from Members across the House in this debate. It is a perfect, but shocking, example of how the system is so broken that we are wasting huge amounts of resources. Money is leaking out of a system that is already inadequately funded. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. It is awful that we are in such a situation.

Children, particularly those with high needs, are having to wake up before dawn and travel for over an hour, finding themselves exhausted when they reach school. That is not choice; that is a scandal. It is not just the children with the most acute needs who are suffering; many children and young people could thrive with targeted, mid-level support if only it were available. The number of children with education, health and care plans has exploded since 2015, in reflection of a genuine increase in need and greater recognition of mental health issues and neurodivergence. Yet funding has not kept pace, resulting in a deficit of around £33 billion in high needs budgets within local authorities.

I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that the current SEND system is not fit for purpose and the recent commitment of £740 million to deliver 10,000 new SEND places, particularly in mainstream schools where specialist units can offer much-needed support closer to home. Following yesterday’s spending review, I look forward to the schools White Paper that will come out in the autumn, with details of the Government’s approach to reforming the SEND system.

We must ensure that the money goes where it is truly needed. I share the frustration of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), as Staffordshire is also chronically disadvantaged by the outdated funding formula, with specialist schools in my constituency receiving £8,000 per pupil less not than Camden but than the national average. A fair, needs-based funding system must reflect the actual costs of specialist provision, not assumptions or averages.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

That is partly about the specification of need and the quantification of how we meet it. Government can be helpful in that. I first took an interest in the matter as a county councillor more than 30 years ago and then as a shadow Schools Minister more recently—some 20 years ago. The Government can provide support through guidance. Guidance can get right the specification of need, and some of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has described can be addressed.

[Josh Newbury]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his expertise and long experience to the debate. I am sure that that message has been heard by the Minister on the Front Bench and that she will look into it.

We must recognise that every child’s needs are different. Reforms must deliver on three major fronts: early intervention, so children get support before problems escalate and not after they have already struggled for years; inclusive schools, with proper funding for specialist units and trained staff in every community, not just in a lucky few; and fair access to transport, because no child should be denied education due to postcode lotteries or long, exhausting journeys.

Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to highlight the number of young people with SEND who go into employment later in life. In Staffordshire, only 2.1% of adults with learning difficulties were in paid employment in 2019-20, compared with an average of 5.4% for all English regions.

I am proud to support the Government’s investment for children with additional needs, but families in Cannock Chase now need to see change on the ground: to see parents and children listened to, not dismissed, and to see them respected, not exhausted. We cannot build the fairer, more inclusive country that we all want to see while SEND families are left fighting for support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for bringing this important issue to the Chamber for a full and thorough discussion.

I want to highlight a few issues in Suffolk Coastal. I recently had quite a large conversation with many parents in my constituency. Nearly 100 parents filled in my survey and told me the extent of the issues they are facing as a consequence of battling with special educational needs provision. Some 60% of those who filled in the survey told me that they have had to withhold their children from school for up to a year because their children could not access education in a setting that was right for them. Nearly a quarter of those children have been off school for over a year.

It will not surprise anyone in this Chamber or any parents listening to the debate that many families are struggling with the mental health consequences of this crisis. One in two parents told me that they are battling with mental health issues as a consequence of their battles with SEND provision. In many conversations that I have had across my constituency with schools, parents and young students, we have also explored some of the recommendations that could be brought forward, and I have spoken at length about that in the past. We have a dual badge in Suffolk: we are a member of f40 and also an area that is being let down regarding SEND. Our county council is effectively in special measures.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is the truth that dare not speak its name. It is often the most disadvantaged or poorly educated parents who struggle to navigate a complex system. Middle-class parents are at an advantage—let us face facts—but that is never really recognised, and it needs to be. Those people need support and guidance to navigate the system, and to get the education that their children rightly deserve.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, which is why I and so many Members are passionate about this issue. Those who cannot articulate or fight for themselves need people to stand up and fight for them.

In many discussions I have had, I have worked with my constituents and with schools to come up with six key recommendations that we think will be innovative. We know there is a funding issue, and I welcome the Government’s investment and commitment to that. However, we need to relook at how we deliver special educational needs. Education, care and health plans are just one part of the problem, but fixing those will not fix the situation that parents are facing.

A school in Saxmundham closed down last summer, because of the declining population in that area, two years after more than £1 million was spent on its SEND unit. It is a great facility whose footprint could facilitate primary and secondary education. I have been urging the Government to look at that— I have written to the Minister, and I will continue to urge the Government to look at that provision and take it forward.

We need a national conversation about SEND and about funding. I welcome Members from across the House talking about the need to bring the voices of parents and young students to that national conversation. We must hear from them why it is failing, and how adversarial the system has become.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow such excellent contributions from Members from all parts of the House in this important debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to the parents, the carers, the schools and all those who have battled tirelessly to secure funding for SEND students.

I was one of those SEND students who benefited from my parents tirelessly campaigning for me to have the disability support I needed in school. It has only taken me this long to finally say thank you. Such support plays a vital role in children’s long-term success. Members from all parts of the House have raised this issue today because they can see the merits in fighting for children’s chances, particularly in primary school, to increase their success overall.

We know that finding the right provision can be difficult and bureaucratic for children with SEND and their families. Securing the right assessment of a child’s needs, getting their education, health and care plan, and finding the right provision takes huge effort and far too long. Many parents who have come to me have been absolutely choked and suffocated by the system. Too often, children with SEND face a postcode lottery, with suitable provision too far from their home or, in the worst cases, no suitable provision at all.

According to the 2024 data, we now have 1.67 million children who have been identified as having SEND— 18.4% of all school pupils. We know that the number has grown significantly over the last few years, which is why the Conservatives opened 108 new specialist schools, committed to a further 92 and delivered over 60,000 new special needs school places. The growth in children with SEND is why getting the distribution of funding correct really does matter. We know that not enough of the funding is reaching schools and the children who need it the most. We know that as the number of children with SEND has increased, the deficit from the high-needs block has become financially unsustainable, as many Members have alluded to today. That is why we must confront the challenges facing local government when the statutory override ends in March 2026, and we would like to hear what assurances the Minister can give on how councils can address the deficit.

[Sir John Hayes]

As I expected, my hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling case. Will she also ask the Minister to address the issue of special needs not being static? Many needs are dynamic—children change when their needs change—and that dynamism needs to be built into the system so that flexible funding can follow need.

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that excellent point. Many Members have raised this issue, and perhaps we can have another debate in Government time on how SEND funding can follow the student, rather than just having it allocated. The needs of a SEND student will change over time, which is why parents often change educational providers. Children may go into independent school settings and then come back to state settings, and parents are constantly battling the system. It is worth looking at whether we can have a model in which the funding follows the student.

Many parents have come to me, and I am sure to other Members, to ask for VAT not to be charged on independent school fees, because over 100,000 pupils with SEND who were being supported in that educational setting now have to go back into the state sector, which cannot cope with rising costs and the number of students entering the system. I ask the Government to urgently look at that and to U-turn on the policy of charging VAT on school fees, because SEND children are falling through the cracks as a result.

For SEND students in primary school, it is very important that they have educational support through teachers. Primary school teachers are some of the most important teachers. They changed my life and helped me cope with my disability, and I would not be here today if I had not had them. The Government claimed that they would recruit 6,500 more teachers, but we have now heard that they will not do so. The truth is that there are now 400 fewer teachers than there were a year ago. Promises have been made, but this promise seems to have been broken.

However, it is even worse than that. When it comes to SEND, primary schools play a vital role, but this Government have had to quietly drop primary school teachers from their promise to recruit 6,500 teachers, and I honestly want to know why that is. Primary schools are where children with hidden SEND will first present. If there is early intervention, the journey to provide them with the right support is much easier. Having that support yields high levels of return, but if it is not put in place in time, we see high levels of exclusion and ultimately see children disengage from education and learning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

As far as I am aware, EHC plans will continue.

We know that children’s earliest years make the biggest difference to their life chances. As I have already said, we believe in early intervention and recognise the importance of high-quality early years education and care, which can lead to better outcomes for children. Having access to a formal childcare setting allows children’s needs to be identified at the earliest opportunity, so that the appropriate support and intervention can be put in place to allow children with SEND to thrive.

Arrangements are in place to support children with SEND to access Government funding in early education, including funding for disability access and special educational needs inclusion and the high needs NFF allocations to support local authorities. We are reviewing early years SEND funding arrangements to assess how suitable the current arrangements are for supporting the needs of children with SEND.

The additional funding for schools of more than £4 billion a year over the next three years announced in the spending review will provide an above real-terms per-pupil increase in the core schools budget, taking per-pupil funding to its highest ever level and enabling us to transform the SEND system. We will improve support for children, stop parents having to fight for support and protect the support that is currently in place. Details of the Government’s intended approach to SEND reform will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn. The Government will also set out further details on supporting local authorities as we transition to a reformed system as part of the upcoming local authority funding reform consultation.

[Sir John Hayes]

The point was made earlier about rural areas. My county of Lincolnshire has a sparsely distributed population, which makes travel and access difficult for parents of children with special needs. Will the Minister address that in the new funding formula to ensure that rural areas do not lose out?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have already said, the Government intend to set out our SEND reforms in the schools White Paper in the autumn. I will make sure that a further response is also provided to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.

The investment in the spending review is a critical step forward in our mission to support all children and young people to achieve and thrive, and to support teachers and leaders to deliver high and rising standards across every school for every pupil.

On travel, which has been raised by many Members across the Chamber, local authorities must arrange free travel for children of compulsory school age who attend their nearest school and cannot walk there because of the distance, their SEND or a mobility problem, or because the route is not safe. There are additional rights to free travel for low-income households to help them exercise school choice.

Where a child has an EHCP, the school named in the plan will usually be considered their nearest to home for school travel purposes. We know how challenging home-to-school travel is for local authorities at the moment. That is due in large part to the pressures in the SEND system itself.

Central Government funding for home-to-school travel is provided through the local government finance settlement, administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The final settlement for 2025-26 makes available over £69 billion for local government, which is a 6.8% cash-terms increase in councils’ core spending power for 2024-25.

We have committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, so that more children can attend a local school with their peers. This will mean that fewer children will need to travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs, which will reduce pressure on home-to-school travel over time, meaning that we will be better able to meet the needs of those who still need to rely on it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you want me to draw to a close. I reiterate that the Government are urgently looking at reforming the SEND system, so that it better serves children and young people and their families. We have noted all the contributions that have been made this afternoon. This will take time, but we are working at pace and will be setting out our plans to do that in the White Paper in the autumn. Members can rest assured that our approach is rooted in partnership, and that all our work will be guided by what children, their families, experts, leaders and frontline professionals tell us. We can transform the outcomes of young people with SEND only if we listen and work together on solutions.

Relationships, Sex and Health Education: Statutory Guidance

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

Another approach is obviously looking at access to smartphones at a very young age. On the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the most appropriate guidance is “Keeping children safe in education”, which is a substantial piece of guidance and used regularly by schools. It is also regularly reviewed. Of course there is a live discussion about our concerns regarding children having access to harmful content through mobile phones at a young age. We will continue to consider that, and that is why I took a step to also ban the use of smartphones in schools.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The poet John Betjeman said:

“Childhood is measured out by sounds and smells and sights, before the dark hour of reason grows.”

Darkness falls when very young children are forced to know too much, too early, and their innocence is stolen. In warmly welcoming the Government’s approach, will the Secretary of State look again at those third-party organisations that are often invited into schools, sometimes witlessly, sometimes carelessly? For they steal children’s innocence, often in the name of diversity and inclusion, and in so doing, promote, promulgate and perpetuate every kind of horror.

[Gillian Keegan]

Not only will I now be able to look at the materials, but so will parents, and so will Ofsted when it reviews what is happening in schools against the guidance we have issued. Transparency is important. Obviously we should ensure that materials are appropriate and the guidance is there as well, but I believe that transparency will act as a great guide to ensure the right materials are in our schools.

Child Literacy: Disadvantaged Areas

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having six grandchildren. I have only two children, Persephone and Charlotte, but one day I hope to have six grandchildren or more. I hope that they, too, will have a love of books and learning.

At present, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are already behind their more affluent peers when they enter primary school. That is extremely concerning, especially coupled with the 40% development gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers that emerges by the age of five. The primary school rate is currently set at £1,385 per pupil, whereas the early years rate is only £342. That deeply affects the access to books that children have in their early years, as well as their chances of developing strong literacy skills. Ultimately, the funding currently allocated to early years does not reflect the evidence on child development or sectoral need.

My constituency of Rother Valley is by no means the worst-performing area in the UK in literacy and education rates—it has some great schools—but its literacy scores are certainly below the national average. On a recent visit to Dinnington Community Primary School, I was joined by Cressida Cowell—a former children’s laureate and the author of the hugely popular series “How to Train Your Dragon”—to discuss children’s literacy. A vast proportion of our conversation concentrated on the inequality in children’s access to school libraries. Yorkshire and the Humber holds the unenviable place of being the geographical area of the UK with statistically the lowest children’s book ownership: some 9.2% of children do not own a single book. It is particularly concerning that two in every five children in England are eligible for free school meals, but many of them do not have a dedicated library in their school.

I make it clear that prioritising the availability of books in primary schools should not be confined to disadvantaged areas. While there are apparent regional differences in library provision between the north and south of England, it should be a priority across the whole UK. It has been estimated that if all children were to read for pleasure, the economic impact of their increased skills, and therefore increased potential, would raise the UK’s GDP by £4.6 billion a year within just one generation. National Libraries Week encapsulates this notion with its most recent theme, “Never Stop Learning”, which seeks to draw attention to the valuable role that libraries play in supporting not only primary school children, but lifelong learning. If we prioritise children’s literacy, the whole UK will reap the benefits in every aspect of our society, most notably economically and socially.

A school library is a driving force for so many opportunities for children. It is essential for it to possess a wide range of books, from novels to graphic novels and even comics. It also needs to be an inviting place—we need to move away from the idea of a small, dark, gloomy room. It is not simply that if children have access to a primary school library, they will have a higher probability of attaining good literacy levels. It goes beyond access; it is also about quality, engagement with children, and the books on offer. Children need to be drawn to a library and to what it has to offer.

School libraries and efficiently allocated funding are critical, but I accept that they are not the only things that matter. Primary schools up and down the country are doing incredible work to boost literacy levels, but there is only so much that they can do, especially as much of what influences children and young people is beyond the school gates: it happens at home and in their day-to-day interactions with their local community and environment. That is why it is necessary for the private sector to play an active role in helping to boost literacy levels. Through their products, services and charitable initiatives, businesses have channels to influence children and young people that schools simply do not have.

A prime example of this multi-partner approach is the National Literacy Trust’s work with McDonald’s since 2013 as part of the McDonald’s Happy Readers campaign. Some 61 million books have been distributed as a result of that initiative, which is based on McDonald’s swapping toys and happy meals for books and including a book offer on the box. That is an undeniably strong example of the outcomes that can be achieved through a multi-sector, multi-partner approach.

The rewards of access to books are not confined to academic and economic achievement. Reading is a vital aid to a child’s mental wellbeing. There are proven, identified links between children’s literacy engagement and their wellbeing. Children who are most engaged with literacy are three times more likely to have higher levels of good mental wellbeing than children who are least engaged. I believe that engagement with literacy relies heavily on libraries being a place to which children have access during their lunch breaks—a “third space” away from the classroom.

For me, a library is a wonderful form of escapism—indeed, just like the best books. As a result of my strong belief that the availability of primary school libraries, as well as books at home, is instrumental to improving literacy attainment, I have canvassed many schools across Rother Valley over the past couple of months to assess their reading facilities. I was delighted with the level of engagement. It was encouraging and confirmed to me that, with the right support, schools are receptive to prioritising reading.

Initiatives such as Michael Morpurgo Month—a competition where schools enter to win a live virtual event with the author—are incredible ways to engage children, even those who do not consider themselves natural readers. I am extremely proud that some primary schools in Rother Valley will enter this competition, and I urge other Members to encourage their primary schools to start thinking outside the box and to engage with similar initiatives that bring reading to life for children.

Ultimately, we need to challenge the outdated notion that reading is boring or irrelevant. My strong belief in prioritising children’s literacy prompted me to meet the National Literacy Trust and the World Book Day charity. I was incredibly pleased to learn of the invaluable work they do to raise awareness not only of the significant role libraries play in helping children reach their full potential, but of the benefits that reading for pleasure can bring. The annual World Book Day, which takes place on Thursday 2 March, is dedicated to reading for pleasure. It witnesses 15 million book tokens being distributed each year, with an impressive 90% of schools participating throughout the UK. I strongly encourage Members to attend the parliamentary event on 28 February to show their support for World Book Day.

It can be easy to think that World Book Day is an isolated day that comes round once a year, but the charity’s work challenging the notion that reading is outdated continues throughout the year. It releases book club content, reading recommendation lists and video stories with the aim of helping parents engage their children in reading beyond the classroom. A distinct aspect of the charity is how it introduces children to comic books and graphic novels for those who perceive reading as not for them. I was surprised to learn that research from 2015 found that reading a Dickens novel and a manga comic book have exactly the same impact on a child’s development because of the way they engage the brain with pictures and tests to open up their imagination in a new way. I am in the process of becoming a World Book Day champion, and I urge all other Members to do what they can and to consider joining as well for the good of the children.

The National Literacy Trust works to address low literacy rates in disadvantaged areas by combining a range of evidence-based programmes with community-driven, place-based solutions. Across the UK, the trust has 20 literacy hubs in areas with the highest levels of deprivation and literacy vulnerability. The hub’s approach is characterised by a mix of strategic local partnerships, community campaigns and targeted programmatic activity in earlier settings than schools, run by local teams that have strong existing networks in these communities. Literacy hubs are leading the way in breaking cycles of intergenerational low literacy by engaging the entire community, which encapsulates the innovation we all should be striving for.

In October 2021, the National Literacy Trust, together with Penguin Random House, launched the Primary School Library Alliance, which strives to address the chronic lack of investment in primary school libraries and to change the narrative where one in seven primary schools in England does not have a library by transforming library spaces. As of 2022, the alliance has worked with more than 330 schools, and its mission is to help transform 1,000 primary school libraries by 2025 by giving them the books, training and support they require to make that possible. The fact that the programme is worth over £5 million and is supported by many children’s authors, publishers and private companies proves the extent of support on prioritising improving children’s literacy skills.

One aspect of its work that should be noticed is its intense focus on engaging parents to encourage their children to read, such as in early morning reading groups for parents, by having books in the house and the school library being open in holidays. These are all innovative ways to encourage parents to see the value in reading and for children to view the library as their third space outside the classroom. The success of the scheme speaks for itself, and I am sure Members will join me in advocating for the expansion of such a wonderful scheme, which is pioneering in creating not just a library space, but a reading community.

Having argued the merits and value of primary school libraries, what can be done to ensure their secured future in our educational institutions? We all want to reach the end point of a statutory requirement for all primary schools to have an adequately sized and well-resourced library. That would greatly complement the White Paper published in March 2022 and help achieve its aim of improving literacy rates across the UK. However, it is recognised throughout the sector that we must transition towards that through the support of public-private schemes, such as the Primary School Library Alliance.

Secondly, the Government must recognise the importance of early years for language development. That needs to be reflected in the funding invested in resources, which should result in early years receiving the same rate as the primary school rate. As a consequence, the early years rate should equate to the £1,385 per pupil received by primary school children.

Thirdly, the Government should ensure that the allocation of funding across the UK is weighted towards disadvantaged areas to target the pupils who are persistently disadvantaged. One of the ways the Government can do that is by taking a multi-sector, multi-partner approach to activate private sector investment. In practice, that requires the Government to support initiatives such as the Primary School Library Alliance, to try to further their goal of reaching 1,000 schools by 2025. That support would prevent the statutory requirement from being solely tokenistic, since it strives to engage pupils, teachers and parents. The Government need to form partnerships to create a readers’ community throughout the whole United Kingdom.

Ultimately, I propose that we must ensure every child in Rother Valley and across the whole of the UK has access to an adequately sized and well-resourced library at their local school to achieve high levels of literacy attainment. We must do more to help every child fulfil their potential—that was a pledge of the school White Paper. I firmly believe that introducing the statutory requirement for all primary schools would be a force for change to make that truly possible, and improve not only the quality of our children’s access to books, but the rest of their lives. Children are the future generation, so it is crucial that we ensure they are provided with adequate resources to excel fully and change the narrative of 25% of 11-year-olds leaving primary school being unable to read at the expected level. That figure rises to 40% among disadvantaged children.

Reading is a simple, cost-effective and powerful tool to unlock prosperity in Rother Valley and across the UK, and it is our duty to make the United Kingdom the world’s foremost reading community. I hope that my sponsoring today’s debate can be in the first chapter of the very exciting story of children’s literacy.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Sir John, I have not been notified that you wish to speak in the debate. I have not been told by the Member that he has your permission, nor have I heard it from the Minister.

[Sir John Hayes]

I did ask—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It is easy to do. Does the Member have any objections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Unusual is my middle name, Mr Bone. I am immensely grateful for your indulgence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) spoke about the debate earlier this afternoon; I had not expected to be here, but when he told me the subject I felt that I ought to be.

The way in which we store, exchange and use information has changed immeasurably in my lifetime. The internet has done good but, of course, much more harm—not least because, paradoxically, it makes finding information more straightforward but simultaneously makes serendipity less likely, as the pursuit of speed replaces the journey of discovery. Search engines mean that we are directed to exactly what we need when we need it, rather than the business of finding out things that one did not expect, which might stimulate all kinds of thoughts, ideas and adventures, and that is just what a library does. When someone enters a library or a bookshop, they do not always necessarily know what they will come out with; in fact, they very often come out with much that they did not expect to.

Libraries play a critical part in exciting and enthralling and seeding dreams and memories. School libraries are particularly important in that regard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley made clear. T. S. Eliot said, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?” If he was alive now, he would say, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in data?”, as we drown in a sea of data. Libraries—whether they be public libraries, such as the one I helped to save in the Deepings, my constituency, which is now flourishing, or school libraries in the schools in my constituency—are places where children, often for the first time, encounter the canon of English literature. No childhood—no rich and enjoyable childhood —is complete, surely, without knowing C. S. Lewis, Roald Dahl, dear Enid Blyton or Tolkien, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on this motion. Every child in every school should—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Sir John; that is all very good. I call the Minister.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments, and for the style and energy that he brings to such interventions. The cases the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about are exceptions. Indeed, Office for Students statistics show how few cases there have been. I was making a point about the amount of parliamentary time that has been devoted to this over two years when there are much larger issues at play on our campuses.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says these are marginal considerations. I do not know whether on the visits he has described—which sound picturesque, as well as being, no doubt, informative—he ever meets members of the University and College Union, because its survey on this matter found that 35% of academics self-censor for fear of the consequences of saying what they really believe.

[Matt Western]

I talk to members of all university communities of course, as the right hon. Member would expect: I talk to the senior leadership teams, UCU members, Unison members, those who are non-affiliated, and also students. I listen to all points of view across the piece. I am sure that occasionally the right hon. Member did not say what he would have liked to have said in a Cabinet meeting when in power, but that is the nature of how society works and there should be no difference between what happens on campuses and in wider society.

Anyone would think that the Minister’s colleagues have come to the fair conclusion that the Bill is more about political posturing than delivering on students’ priorities. Let me be clear for the record: this Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill and its passage through both Houses is a product of a Government who are out of touch, out of ideas and out of steam. It has been a masterclass in how not to pass legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I sat on the Bill Committee and heard the evidence. Some, which I supported, talked about the unnecessary nature of the Bill, much said it would be unhelpful, and a lot said it would impose a chilling effect. I have no problem with a requirement for free speech. I have no problem with, for example, allowing the Office for Students to determine these matters. In fact, I would like an appeals process to be part of that, which would strengthen the provision by allowing people to seek resolution. Instead, the evidence we heard on the tort aspect was that it would be chilling. Rather than take the risk, people would not do anything.

We know that that has happened before. Many Acts have been passed in this place that have had a chilling effect, meaning that people do not take action. I want to see vibrant debate in my universities. That has always happened, such as when University of Sussex students in the 1970s blocked the American ambassador from coming on campus until he condemned the war in Vietnam. Those activities are also about free speech; students’ ability to express their heartfelt beliefs and desires must be allowed as well, but such activities would be prevented under the Bill.

That is why I am against the Government’s move to reject the Lords amendment, although I welcome some of the other moves, particularly on non-disclosure agreements, that we put in initially. I wish the Government would come together with us to remove the tort clauses and to provide other appeal processes, so that people can seek proper justice that is not just about financial recompense.

[Sir John Hayes]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the University of Bolton.

Learning is, through exploration, the discovery of truths. Of equal importance to the answers learning provides are the questions it poses. For the emergence of understanding is a process, not a moment—a journey, not a destination. Such is the delight of being inspired to know more that it provokes an open-mindedness to all kinds of possibilities.

That is the spirit that speakers across this House have enjoyed and recommended to us, and yet across universities that spirit is being frustrated by the kind of intolerance that, rather than opening minds, aims to close down debate. This Bill must provide a significant shield and a sword to those who are determined that universities remain places where ideas are discussed freely and can be tested through critical analysis.

W. B. Yeats said, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” We must not quench the fire of learning because we regard some ideas or views as contentious or controversial. Some may alarm. Some may cause offence. Yet without the ability to alarm and to disturb and to shock, there is no ability to inspire and to move and to enthral. They are two sides of the same coin.

The practitioners of intolerant identity politics have successfully cancelled a litany of students and academics who dared to espouse particular understandings of race, gender and sex—understandings, by the way, that are commonly held by our constituents—taken as read by most of the people we represent.

Those without wealth or influence to resist have too often been left at the mercy of the mob. It is a bitter irony that one academic who came forward to give evidence when we discussed the Bill in Committee, Kathleen Stock, was subsequently driven out of her job by a combination of militant students and weak-minded academics who refused to support her. She told us, along with my friend Arif Ahmed, that there is a climate of fear and a culture of silence, as academics self-censor for fear that what they say might leave them at the mercy of university authorities that use all kinds of techniques to silence them. So, this Bill is critical and the tort is critical to its effect.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

When we served on the Committee, did we not agree that one thing this Bill lacked was security of tenure for academics—very rare now—which would provide a bulwark against a chilling effect? Is that not something we could seek agreement on?

[Sir John Hayes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but, having declared my interest that I am employed at the University of Bolton, I had better not make too forceful a point about it.

Many more academics we do not know of will have faced similar pressures, in untold everyday stories of students and academics that, whether through fear or otherwise, go unreported or unresolved. That is why it is so important to reject the Lords amendment that would abolish the new statutory tort proposed in the Bill as it was originally drafted. It is disappointing that the academic establishment in the other place made a case against that—disappointing, but unsurprising, because of course these people look after their own. I am very pleased that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, the Minister has resisted those calls. She has shown determination, insight and, I must say, a degree of courage in doing so, because it is easy to roll over when the big beasts in the other place roar in defence of the academic establishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pretty sure there were people who tried to cancel them at the time. I was not at university and I cannot make any further comment on that.

My plea is simple. We have heard today from Members who have a lot of sensible and direct experience. The issues raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central are very important, including that of freedom of speech and the limits placed on it. At what point do we allow a fascist, a Nazi, to speak? At what point do we allow a holocaust denier to speak? Those issues are best dealt with by codes of practice, rather than by threats of legal action. Surely codes of practice in colleges and universities, and discussion and debate, bring about a better resolution than enabling those who can afford it to take legal action.

Student unions that are frightened and nervous about any action that might be taken against them simply go down the road of caution and reduce, limit and inhibit the student experience. Surely we want our young people to be brought up listening to and developing challenging ideas, and being inventive and creative. Surely that is what education should be about, not the straitjacket of being told what to think, what to say and what to know. It has to be that approach—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is waving his arms around. I am concerned.

[Sir John Hayes]

We think that, too. That is the very purpose of the Bill—to open minds, to open debate, to have free speech. We believe in what the right hon. Gentleman is articulating, so perhaps he should vote with us tonight.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot vote with him tonight because I think the Bill will have the opposite effect. I wish it were the other way around, but it is not. We should recognise that the Lords amendment is a good one. It would make the academic experience better, not worse, and it would be a good idea if, for once, we supported it.