Fostering Reforms
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(4 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Today I am setting out the Government’s plan to increase the number of foster care places in England and to renew fostering for modern family life. Foster families provide the stable, trusted relationships that children in care need, yet the number of foster carers has fallen by 12% since 2019. This shortage means that too many children live far from their communities, are separated from siblings, or are placed in residential care unnecessarily.
To address this, we will create 10,000 additional foster care places by the end of this Parliament, backed by £88 million over the next two years. Our plan will reverse the decline in foster carers, strengthen support around foster families, and put trusted relationships at the centre of decision making for children in care.
We will launch a national recruitment and awareness campaign, supported by improved digital tools and strengthened data collection. A £25 million capital programme will help existing carers expand or renovate their homes to care for more children, including sibling groups.
We will enhance regional collaboration by expanding fostering recruitment hubs, supported by £12.8 million, providing a single route into fostering with consistent assessment and post-approval support. A further £10.8 million will support new regional care co-operatives to increase placement availability and improve stability for children.
To encourage innovation, we will invest £12.4 million to test new models such as step-down care, weekend and short-break fostering, strengthened supported lodgings, and additional remand foster placements. We will also improve retention by investing £8.9 million in over 100 new Mockingbird constellations, and by strengthening training, support and the handling of allegations. We will also pursue greater transparency in foster care financial support.
Finally, we will simplify the fostering rulebook. We will update fostering standards and guidance, work with Ofsted to reshape inspection around trusted relationships, and set clearer expectations that the assessment and approval process should not exceed the six-month standard that we have for adoption. Foster carers will be empowered to make day-to-day decisions for children in their care, and we will strengthen support for kinship foster care, working hard to protect children’s links to trusted adults.
Alongside the publication of the Government’s action plan, we will launch a consultation and call for evidence, to ensure that our next steps are informed by foster carers and children with lived experience.
By simplifying the rules, improving support and acting both nationally and regionally, this Government will increase the number of children able to live in loving, stable homes and build the long-term relationships they need.
A copy of the consultation and the call for evidence will be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1300]
Local Authority Children’s Services
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing the debate and for his powerful and heartfelt contribution. I have met him on a number of occasions, and I am sure we will continue to meet to discuss these and other related issues.
I express my own deep sorrow at the tragic death of Sara Sharif. By all accounts, Sara was a bright happy girl who should have gone on to enjoy all the things in life she had ahead of her. Instead, her life was brought to a brutal and painful end by the actions of her father and stepmother. In such circumstances, it is small comfort to know that those directly responsible for Sara’s death have been brought to justice and will spend most of the rest of their lives in prison. I pay tribute to all who gave evidence that ultimately proved beyond doubt that her death was the result of lengthy and increasingly sadistic abuse.
We in this place must also reflect on the fact that, as set out in the local child safeguarding practice review, there were opportunities where Sara’s appalling mistreatment could have been identified and stopped. I have already committed to write to the hon. Member for Woking, setting out the Government’s full range of actions in direct response to the recommendations of the LCSPR.
I will take a moment to recognise the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly praised the fantastic work of Martin Kelly and his team in turning around services in York, beyond simply looking at the Ofsted inspection results. The transformational change for children and families in that city is down to that team’s brilliant work. My hon. Friend also rightly identified the concept of safe uncertainty. As we have heard, we are trying to legislate for and resource a system that needs to act decisively when there is significant harm, and support families where there is not significant harm, but there are concerns. Getting that balance right requires practitioners to occupy a very difficult position of safe uncertainty: not knowing, but holding competing hypotheses and ideas in mind about what might be going on for a family, and doing so in a calm, methodical and skilled way.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made a point about social work judgment, which neatly summarised that reflection. Devon’s performance is an ongoing concern—for far too many years, it has not been able to reach a level of providing good enough services for children and families. I welcome his summary of some of the progress that has been made, in particular in workforce stability. I will keep a close eye on that to ensure that we get Devon to the point where it is no longer under an intervention by the Department—but that intervention will continue for as long as necessary to get services to the place where his residents and the children he represents need them to be. Like many other hon. Members, he mentioned residential care and the concerns about profiteering, which I will return to in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) was absolutely right to highlight the situation in which more than 1,000 children are in care. If we were to take a step back and ask whether some of those children could have grown up with people who already loved them and could keep them safe, if we had the resources and intervention available to support the family network, I am convinced, as he is, that the answer would be yes. I welcome the spirit in which his offer was given; he has raised that offer with me before, which is not being defensive about the challenges that the city faces, but asks whether the Department will take a proactive approach in offering improvement support, doing it in a slightly different way. I confirm to him that yes, we will, and I am happy to have further conversations with him. Similarly, with Ofsted, I wish to ensure that its inspection framework and the chief inspector’s approach are totally in line with the Government reform programme. I am pleased to confirm that such work is very much under way.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) wants to write to me about the situations that she raised. I am happy to look into them. She is also right to raise the crucial role of education as part of that partnership for safeguarding children.
As a foster carer, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) knows better than anyone the importance of getting fostering right, so that we do not need to rely unnecessarily on residential care, with all the consequences of that. He was right to highlight the amazing work of Mockingbird constellations to support foster carers. In the coming days, I urge him to keep a close eye on any announcements that may be welcomed positively on both those fronts.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly highlighted the progress that has been made in Kirklees council and stressed the need to fund further reform, which is the action that the Government are taking with £2.4 billion to roll out the Families First programme. He made a point about off-rolling and children not on the school register, which I will return to directly in a moment.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) in congratulating the local Labour team and the children’s social care staff there on their work to turn around those services. Like him, I want to take action to disrupt the broken care market. I encourage local partners in the Tees valley and across the whole north-east to come forward with proposals for a regional care co-operative, which the Government will certainly consider.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was right to highlight the rural dimension of much of the debate. I, too, represent a rural constituency, and the way in which children’s social care is delivered needs to reflect the benefits of dispersed access to services. On the adoption and special guardianship support fund, the Government will set out very soon actions to give more certainty and improvements to that fund into the future. I shall keep Members abreast of those updates.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) was absolutely right to highlight the improvements not just in English local authorities, but in his own Welsh constituency in Powys. He rightly highlighted the centrality of advocacy for children, in particular for those in care.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was right to highlight the dimensions beyond just England. In fact, the UK Government have brazenly stolen Northern Ireland innovations in support of children in residential care. We look to bring the model of step-down care in fostering in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK.
I will now answer directly some of the concerns expressed by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I appreciate the spirit in which she offered to work collaboratively with the Government. She highlighted a number of the issues where the Government have been listening and responding, not least with regard to the children not in school register, where we have tabled a number of amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to address the specific points around burdens for families.
On funding, the hon. Lady quoted my report at me, so I will quote it back at her. I called for £2.6 billion of funding over a four-year reform programme. I am really proud to say that the Government have invested and met that and, in some cases, exceeded it. The Families First programme has received £2.4 billion on top of previous spending, and hundreds of millions of pounds will be spent to improve the care system. The job now is to make sure that that investment is spent well and has a lasting effect.
I recognise the point that the hon. Lady makes about private special schools and the profit cap. We will be setting out the full range of reforms that we will be making to the special educational needs system shortly. We have heard the point that she has made on that. We have also announced £3 billion of capital spending for local authorities across England to increase special educational needs provision.
Finally, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), talked about the scope of the children not in school register. I appreciate the cross-party nature of his remarks, but it is a challenging position to occupy to say that there are too many burdens on families while also advocating for amendments to the Bill that would dramatically widen the scope of the children not in school register to more families. The Conservative amendment that he referred to, tabled in the other place, would cover all families who have ever had a child protection investigation. Under a third of those investigations identify significant harm, so it would be a significant widening of scope. I will happily have a further conversation with the hon. Member about that, but I have concerns about the scope.
In the light of the time available, I will briefly summarise the specific action that the Government are taking to address concerns about the child protection system in England. It is absolutely essential that we build a more confident, decisive and expert-led child protection response that learns, not only from Sara’s appalling abuse, but from the experience of many other children who have been referenced in this debate.
We need to make sure that the children not in school register closes the loopholes where families are deliberately seeking to abuse their children. We need to build, as we are, multi-agency child protection teams that bring agencies from across different services, work in lockstep with the police, health services and social care, and make those judgments with only the most expert staff in their units. We are resourcing those and rolling them out as we speak. We need to make sure that well-resourced family help provision is in place for those families.
Nationally, we have just finished the consultation for the child protection authority. The national panel will be transferring to take on that function with a wider scope, in the light of Alexis Jay’s report. My ambition is to make sure that, in as many cases as possible where there is significant harm, we have a group of experts from across different services who can zoom in on that abuse and act decisively with the family court system, so that we have far fewer of these cases in the future. At a national level, my ambition is to make sure that we are able to rewire information sharing, including through the single unique identifier, so that we do not end up in that situation in the first place. I will finish by thanking the hon. Member for Woking for triggering this important debate.
International Education Strategy
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Today I am announcing the launch of the UK’s refreshed international education strategy.
Together, the Department for Education, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are setting out a vision and road map to economic prosperity and resilience, through promoting the UK’s world-leading education system globally.
Unlike the previous strategy released in 2019, this approach removes targets on international student numbers in the UK and, while continuing to welcome international students, shifts the focus towards growing education exports overseas by backing UK providers to expand internationally, build partnerships abroad and deliver UK education in new markets.
By strengthening our international partnerships and leadership, we can help to bring stability and co-operation in an uncertain and changing world. War has returned to Europe, and old certainties have been shaken. The world’s population will exceed 8.5 billion people by 2030, and urgent challenges such as climate change are reshaping the skills that people need to thrive. Education equips people to succeed, societies to prosper, and nations to build the participation needed for global stability and growth. It has never been needed more than it is today.
The new international education strategy sets out three ambitions to harness the world-leading quality of UK education:
To increase the UK’s international standing through education and make the UK the global partner of choice at every stage of learning;
To sustainably recruit high-quality international higher education students from a diverse range of countries; and
To collectively grow education exports to £40 billion per year by 2030.
These ambitions leverage the strengths of the UK’s education system and the trust with which UK education institutions are viewed by global partners.
I am grateful to representatives of the UK education sector for their help during the development of this strategy. They are creating a promotional brochure to set out the UK’s offer to the world. We are also grateful to our international education champion, Sir Steve Smith. We will be convening a new education sector action group, chaired by Ministers, with representatives of the sector who will help us steer delivery and maximise the impact of the strategy.
The international education strategy will be available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-international-education-strategy-2026
[HCWS1256]
Oral Answers to Questions
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
More than 260,000 state-funded pupils took at least one A-level in the summer of 2025, and we expect that to remain steady in the future. T-levels continue to grow: at the last count more than 25,000 students embarked on them, which represents an increase of nearly 60% on the previous year’s figure. We are committed to offering post-16 students even more choice through V-levels, a new vocational qualification sitting alongside A-levels and T-levels.
Gareth Snell
As the Minister will know, the uptake of T-levels is behind where we expected it to be and where many colleges would like it to be. At this point I should declare an interest, as a governor of my local sixth-form college.
Given that the Government are still intending to defund BTECs during the current academic year, given that T-levels are not having the uptake that they should have and given that V-levels are not coming on track until 2027, is the Minister confident that every young person will have access to a relevant course this September, and if not, what can he do about it? Will he consider pausing the defunding of BTECs until such time as V-levels come on line?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Member for his leadership on these issues through the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education, and for his local leadership as a constituency MP. I can reassure him that we will manage the transition carefully as these changes are introduced. We stand behind T-levels, which are a good option for many students, and we want to see the numbers increase. We have run a consultation which has now closed, and we are analysing the responses to ensure that all students experience a smooth transition.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister rightly paints an optimistic picture of more people enrolling for A-levels and T-levels, which is wonderful for our young people, but I have noticed in recent days that some politicians keep talking down Britain and saying it is a broken country. That is simply not true. Education, for instance, is vastly better than it was 15 years ago. If we indulge in grievance politics, what does that say to the young people who are starting their journey in life? Let us be positive, and say that Britain is great.
Josh MacAlister
I thank the right hon. Member for his read-out of the discussion that took place during the most recent shadow Cabinet meeting, where this was a lively topic of debate. Britain is not broken; it has huge and deep potential, best found in our children. We were pleased to see the last Conservative Government take forward many of the reforms initiated under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will be doubling down on the measures that are needed to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will introduce a financial oversight scheme for children’s social care. That will increase the transparency of children’s social care providers so that we can make accurate, real-time assessments of financial risk so that local authorities can step in and take swift action in the interests of children.
Sarah Olney
Last Friday, the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, published its report into the financial sustainability of children’s homes. The report highlights that there is very little financial and governance oversight of private companies, which run 84% of children’s homes in the UK. Given that the 15 largest private children’s homes providers make average profits of 22% on an average charge per child per year of £318,000, what more can the Government do to ensure that children’s homes have appropriate financial and governance oversight?
Josh MacAlister
I welcome the hon. Member’s interest in this issue, and the reports from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Children’s social care issues looked at through the prism of profit making in children’s homes demonstrate how much radical reform we need for children’s social care. That is why we are putting £2.4 billion into resetting the system overall so that it intervenes earlier. We will also bring forward plans very soon to set out an expansion of fostering. That is in addition to measures in the Bill that is currently going through the other place to introduce a financial oversight mechanism and a profit cap to address the issues that the hon. Member has mentioned.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The hospitality industry is hugely important. Nothing has been decided on defunding apprenticeships yet. I recognise all my hon. Friend’s points, and we share her ambition that the apprenticeship system in the future is entirely designed around progression, as well as one-off learning.
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to sit down, and it is not going to be me. Can I just try to help? I have a load of Members who all want to catch my eye. This is topicals, and we need short and punchy questions and answers. We will get a good example from the Minister.
Josh MacAlister
I compliment my hon. Friend’s local leadership in High Peak. To support our ambition of 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, we are expanding foundation apprenticeships, launching a £140 million pilot with mayors to better connect young people with local apprenticeships, and fully funding small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver apprenticeships for eligible 16 to 24-year-olds.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend has been leading local efforts on this issue, for which I pay tribute to him. The Government stand ready to support local higher education institutions where challenges are present, and I will of course extend the offer to continue that support, as will my noble Friend the Minister for Skills. The Office for Students has responsibility for ensuring that such transitions are managed carefully.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The guidance for complaints in children’s social care was issued 20 years ago and has not been updated since. Those who work in the system say that it is out of date, and the ombudsman echoes their concerns. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the guidance is up to date? Will he meet me to hear the concerns that have been shared with me?
Josh MacAlister
I share some of those concerns; this is an important issue. I have asked officials to meet the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to better understand the issues in the current complaints process, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. Separately, we will soon publish updated statutory guidance on advocacy services for children. The points the hon. Lady raised are important.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The household income threshold for the maximum maintenance loan for students has not changed since 2008. If the threshold is not increased, by 2028 a child from a single-parent household with a parent working full time for the minimum wage will not qualify for the full maintenance loan. What are we doing to end this scandal after 18 years and raise the quota?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Government are focused on protecting support and increasing it for those who need it most, which is why we are increasing loans in line with inflation, reintroducing maintenance grants and, crucially—something I am very proud of and which the Secretary of State recently announced—giving care-experienced students automatic access to the full loan entitlement.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
A year ago the Secretary of State dropped the statutory free speech complaints scheme from the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. According to a letter published in The Sunday Times from 370 academics, including three Nobel prize winners, this has totally negated the whole point of the Act, thus imperilling freedom of speech on university campuses. When is the Secretary of State going to do something to correct this mistake?
Universities: Statutory Duty of Care
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I recognise the profound pain felt by families who have lost loved ones in higher education. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his constituents Bob and Maggie Abrahart, whose tireless work for better student support has inspired so many. I want to acknowledge all the families who have campaigned with courage and determination, including those from the LEARN Network—Lived Experience for Action Right Now—who continue to work alongside us to drive change.
Our duty now is clear: we must turn grief into learning and action. The Government share the determination to do just that. We want safer campuses and better support for every student. Our approach is to act on the evidence and work with the sector to embed best practice and strengthen institutional accountability. Members should be in no doubt that this Government believe that change in that regard is needed.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who highlighted Mared’s story: the tragic loss of the life of someone who had a bright future as a pharmacist ahead of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted Oskar’s story. I recognise that improvement in higher education is needed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the UK-wide nature of these concerns and the growing prevalence of mental health conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) raised important issues about general duties, to which I will turn later. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted the link to the cost of living pressures that many students face, and the issues for international students.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) spoke about the tragic stories of Paul, Callum and Alec, and highlighted the really good practice taking place at Bournemouth University, which is part of the answer to what needs to change. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) highlighted the brilliant work of the Unite Foundation, which I know well, and spoke about cohorts such as care-experienced students and estranged students. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) rightly highlighted governance concerns and the centrality of accountability.
The Government remain committed to improving students’ health and wellbeing. Since the previous debate on this matter, we have published the findings from the national review of higher education student suicides. That landmark review examined serious incident and prevention of future deaths reports, identified patterns and risk factors, and looked at institutional responses in depth. The sector’s response was notable. Many universities engaged openly and honestly, showing a clear commitment to share lessons and learn together.
To ensure that the review’s recommendations are turned into action, we have extended the higher education mental health implementation taskforce, which brings together students, families and the sector to work with and challenge institutions to improve student mental health and wellbeing services.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Last week was the seven-year anniversary of the death of one of my constituents’ sons, Kieran Patel. Unfortunately, the House has not given me time to do justice to his story. His mother Manjo was in touch with me last week and shared the horrific experience of the loss of her much-loved and talented son, who was a medical student at Southampton University. We have heard many horrific stories of potential that has been cut short today.
Manjo and other family members left behind would like to know that the action that the Minister is outlining will take place with urgency. The Minister has pointed to a number of previous reviews, debates and discussions. Can he confirm that the Government are seriously looking at a statutory duty and all possible levers to ensure that no parent has to experience a tragic loss like Manjo’s again?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that. I welcome his intervention, given that he has not had a chance to mention Kieran’s story and Manjo’s experience as his mum in a speech.
We want to move fast, which is why we published updated terms of reference for the taskforce just last month. They set out the priorities for the taskforce for the next phase of work, which includes exploring the most effective mechanisms for holding the sector to account. We have also recently appointed Professor Sir Steve West as the new higher education student support champion, to maintain momentum on these matters. Sir Steve will steer the taskforce through the next phase of work.
Although universities play an important role in creating supportive environments, they are not, and should not become, substitute mental health services. Mental health care rightly sits with the NHS. The Government recognise that and the pressures on services, which is why we are recruiting 8,500 additional NHS mental health staff by the end of this Parliament.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East highlighted, many universities are already delivering to bridge the gap, providing counselling, wellbeing services and crisis support, while working closely with local health partners to ensure that students get the right care. The taskforce will shortly publish a report showcasing five successful higher education and NHS partnerships. Those examples will demonstrate how greater collaboration can transform support for students while helping to drive efficiencies across health services. I urge universities that are not already part of such partnerships to study those models and explore how they can forge an approach that works for their local context. To stress it again: the taskforce is looking at how to better hold institutions to account and will make recommendations accordingly.
Phil Brickell
Can the Minister confirm that the taskforce will look at the effectiveness of the OfS as the regulator for the sector in driving better student outcomes and preventing student harm?
Josh MacAlister
The taskforce’s job is to look at the whole system that sits around universities, and the OfS is a crucial part of that, so it will be in scope of that work.
Let me turn to the question of a statutory duty of care. As has been highlighted in this debate, higher education providers have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinary competent institution. In carrying out those duties, they are expected to act reasonably. In addition to general and common-law duties, universities also have explicit statutory obligations. For instance, under the Equality Act, they must make reasonable adjustments for disabled students, which includes those with qualifying mental health conditions. Providers should plan ahead to remove barriers and act promptly when there are signs of mental health deterioration.
Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance makes clear what good practice looks like. Student-facing staff should be trained to recognise signs of mental health crisis or deterioration and should know what steps to take, including helping the student to access support. Where a severe or urgent condition is apparent, reasonable adjustments should be made without waiting for a formal diagnosis or medical evidence. If a student has no diagnosis but staff are concerned, for example because of disengagement, missed deadlines or marked changes in behaviour, staff should consider whether the Equality Act criteria may be met and whether adjustments are appropriate.
We also need to be clear about what introducing a statutory duty would mean in practice. It is not just a question of drafting; it would require defining a minimum legal standard for universities, which risks becoming a ceiling rather than a floor. I draw Members’ attention to some of the evidence provided in the 2023 Petitions Committee hearing on a statutory duty of care, at which a number of stakeholders expressed a range of concerns and scepticism about the unintended effects of a statutory duty of care. A ceiling rather than a floor could drive providers towards defensive compliance and litigation, instead of focusing on what really matters: spotting problems early, making timely adjustments and learning from serious incidents. When we talk about the risk of unintended consequences, this is what we mean: confusion about boundaries, reduced ambition and the risk of resources being diverted from proactive support.
Almost all students are adults. Introducing a special statutory duty for them could be disproportionate, when the evidence shows that students in higher education have a lower suicide rate than others of the same age in the general population. That is not to minimise the problem at universities, which I recognise, but to highlight the need for a proportionate response that strikes the right balance.
We will continue to monitor the evidence, listen deeply to bereaved families and hold providers to account. Right now, the fastest and most effective route to support safer campuses is for universities to embed the recommendations from the national review and best practice identified through the taskforce’s outputs, to strengthen their partnerships with local health services and to ensure full compliance with duties that already exist. Together, I believe we can ensure that higher education remains a place of opportunity, enrichment and safety for every student. I know that those views are wholly shared by my noble Friend Baroness Smith, the Minister for Skills.
Higher Education: Government Support
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing the debate. He has a dedicated record of 15 years of service as a youth mentor, and has worked as a school governor, overseeing the education of young people, so he provides an invaluable perspective on these matters, and particularly on the transition to higher education. I also note the contribution and efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) on this matter.
The work of both Southend Members in supporting students in their area demonstrates their clear commitment to the principle that education must be the primary engine for breaking down barriers to opportunity. This Government share that ambition and are focused on delivering the structural changes required to make it a reality.
I was personally struck by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford on Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill; he stated that his constituency is a “proud coastal community” that has too often been
“left behind when it comes to connectivity, educational outcomes and investment in skills.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 185.]
Our post-16 education and skills White Paper sets out our vision for a world-leading skills system that breaks down barriers. We are determined to ensure that, as my hon. Friend said,
“Where someone lives should not negatively impact their future.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 597.]
Our skills White Paper provides the blueprint for delivering the Prime Minister’s new target of two thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning—academic, technical or apprenticeships—by age 25, up from 50% today. But we can only deliver this by putting the sector on a secure financial footing. That is why we will increase tuition fee caps for all higher education providers in line with forecast inflation in academic years 2026-27 and 2027-28. We will then legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to increase caps automatically for future academic years. That is crucial for getting to the root of some of the challenges that our higher education institutions face regarding sustainability.
This increased investment must be matched by a commitment to excellence. We will make future fee uplifts conditional on higher education providers achieving a higher quality threshold under the Office for Students’ quality regime, and will restrict fee income where that cannot be demonstrated. That will protect taxpayers’ investment and reward providers for higher quality.
We are also committed to supporting the aspirations of every person who meets the requirements and wants to attend higher education. We will introduce targeted means-tested maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year from academic year 2028-29, providing vital extra support for students from low-income households without increasing their debt. Those grants will be funded by the introduction of a levy on income from international students. To help students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, we will future-proof financial support by increasing maintenance loans in line with forecast inflation every academic year. Furthermore, I am particularly proud that we will provide extra support for care leavers, who will automatically become eligible to receive the maximum rate of maintenance loan from academic year 2026-27.
I am aware of the concerns raised about the University of Essex’s decision regarding its Southend campus, and I assure my hon. Friends that the Department is working closely with the Office for Students, the university and local partners to understand the effect on students, and to secure practical options. The Department’s priority is to protect students’ interests by ensuring continuity of study, and access to clear information, support and practical options.
When a campus closes, providers are expected to act in the best interests of students, including by enabling transfers, where that is a student’s choice. Hon. Members rightly expect good-quality communication from the institution about how the change is implemented. The change should support improved value for money for all, and should be backed by a stronger focus on increasing participation for disadvantaged learners. My hon. Friends the Members for Southend East and Rochford, and for Southend West and Leigh, have spoken directly with my noble Friend the Minister for Skills, and have been working proactively with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, and local partners. My hon. Friends’ local leadership on seeking early local collaboration will play a vital part in minimising disruption for students.
My Department will continue to work closely with the Office for Students, the university and others in the area, including Members of Parliament, as the situation relating to the University of Essex develops. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Southend East and Rochford, and for Southend West and Leigh, for their continued championing of the needs of local students, and reassure them that the Government will support their efforts to manage campus changes in a way that minimises disruption for students and ensures that the area has a bright future.
Question put and agreed to.
Length of the School Week
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Happy new year to one and all. I congratulate the young person who started this petition for securing this debate; it is always good to see pupils actively involved in thinking about the world around them and campaigning for the change that they want to see. I started my career as a secondary school citizenship teacher, so I welcome seeing young people using the instruments of their democracy in such a way. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate.
High and rising standards are at the heart of this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage. Schools in England have made excellent progress in recent years and our brilliant teachers provide high-quality education to millions of children. The success of new freedoms and responsibilities for schools, starting with the city academies programme in the 2000s, our new-found discipline in the pursuit of evidence in the education system in England and the professional development that means we now have the most expert teaching workforce ever have all been hard fought for and are now delivering real results for children.
Although I understand why a four-day school week would appeal to some, it is essential that we do not compromise the great progress that has been made over recent years by reducing the amount of time that pupils spend at school, either in total or spread over a five-day week. Evidence, including research by the Education Policy Institute published in 2024, has shown that additional time in school, when used effectively, can have a positive impact on pupil attainment, particularly for the most vulnerable. Schools need enough time to deliver the curriculum to a high standard while ensuring appropriate breaks and opportunities for wider enrichment. Shortening the school week would upset that balance, making it harder for pupils to secure the knowledge and skills they need to go on to lead rich and fulfilling lives. Compressing more hours into fewer days would squeeze out valuable time for school clubs, sport or homework.
For those reasons, the Government have recently restated our commitment to all state-funded mainstream schools delivering a minimum school week of 32.5 hours. Meeting that expectation is essential to delivering fairness and high standards for every child. Our published guidance encourages schools to consider extending their hours beyond the minimum and focus on how that time can best support pupil development and deliver school priorities. Reducing time spent in school risks having the opposite effect.
High-quality time in school is about far more than being in lessons: it is also about creating opportunities for social interaction, enrichment and personal growth. As well as supporting academic achievement, a broad and balanced education plays a vital role in supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people; being in school across the working week ensures that they benefit from the full range of support that a high-quality education offers to help them thrive.
Insisting on schools being open and educating pupils five days a week should not negate the importance of testing new approaches to embedding flexible working practices for teachers. In fact, expanding and promoting flexible working opportunities in schools can help to recruit, retain and motivate teachers, as a number of Members have mentioned. There are many positive examples of schools embracing flexible working policies for teachers and the freedom that comes with that. Dixons Academies Trust offers a nine-day fortnight for all teachers without impacting pupil contact time; it achieves that through innovative methods in large group teaching and by using its senior leadership team in different ways. The results look very encouraging.
My Department is also backing 10 ambassador schools across the country to test and share the best flexible working approaches and solutions. Teacher workloads have been a challenge for schools, too often leading to high rates of teacher turnover. That is why it is so positive to see teachers working fewer hours now than in recent years according to the most recent working lives survey, which was published in November. There is certainly more work to do to ensure that teaching is a balanced and achievable long-term career, but positive progress is being made, as it is on retention and recruitment. However, that is probably a subject for a longer and separate Westminster Hall debate.
To conclude, reducing the school week would undermine pupil learning and development, and place unnecessary strain on working families. High standards, equal access and sufficient time in school are essential if we are to deliver on our commitment to give every child the opportunity to achieve and thrive. That is why this Government stand firmly by the principle of a minimum 32.5-hour school week delivered across five days, which ensures consistency, fairness and opportunity for every child in this country. Considering the wider benefits of time in school, I am afraid to say that the Government therefore have no plans to reduce the school week from five to four days, but I thank all the petitioners for engaging in this process so fully, and thank my colleagues from across the House for contributing to the debate.
Child Protection Authority
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Today Government have launched a public consultation on the Child Protection Authority for England, a new national body with one clear purpose: to protect children. In addition to this consultation, we are also publishing new analysis and data on child sexual abuse and exploitation in response to a recommendation in Baroness Casey’s audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The child protection system
For too long, we have seen heartbreaking cases where the system has not worked as it should. Despite the dedication of thousands of professionals, repeated reviews have shown the same weaknesses: fragmented leadership; poor information sharing; and lessons that take too long to turn into action. These failures have left children exposed to harm, and families devastated. We cannot allow this to continue. Whilst we cannot shield every child from harm, it is imperative that we do not repeat past failures and that we strive to create a future where we do not allow history to repeat itself.
We have heard at first hand from those impacted by systemic failures. It is clear that there is too often a lack of expertise, accuracy and grip in the most important decisions around significant harm. There are countless cases where poor information sharing contributes to serious safeguarding failures, and learning about what does and does not work has been too slowly embedded, if at all.
The Child Protection Authority
The CPA will change that. It will bring national leadership and oversight, using data and intelligence to spot risks early and advise on policy at local and national level, helping to create a system that is proactive, rather than reactive.
It will support initiatives from “what works” centres and centres of expertise in spreading and embedding good practice, as well as plugging vital gaps in research and evidence.
The CPA will also make sure that recommendations lead to real change, not just words on a page. It will work closely with inspectorates, regulators, and relevant Government Departments to drive continuous improvement across the system. Accountability will be clearer, impacts will be measurable, and practice will be expert, accurate and decisive.
The CPA will absorb and build on the impressive work of the child safeguarding practice review panel. I would like to thank Sir David Holmes, former chair Dame Annie Hudson, and panel members, for their tireless work—particularly their relentless focus on sharing learning and modelling multi-agency expertise.
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse called for a national body to address inconsistencies and drive stronger accountability where opportunities have been missed. They called for a body that has a laser focus on child protection, that can build on the strengths of the sector and that can support a system that can take swift and direct action where children are at risk of significant harm. The CPA will be that body.
Reform programme
The measures we are announcing today sit within a wider programme of reform. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and Crime and Policing Bill, we are strengthening multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, introducing a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, and improving information sharing. Through the families first partnership programme, backed by £2.4 billion, we are rolling out family help, family group decision making and multi-agency child protection teams in every local area, and we are taking targeted action to support victims and survivors, including reforms to the disclosure and barring system and removing the three-year time limit for civil claims. We will build a system that can prevent the tragedies we have seen in the past, and one that has enduring relationships at its core.
Baroness Louise Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse
Today, we have also published analysis of child protection data to meet recommendation 9 of Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. This includes analysis of children who were assessed as being affected by child sexual abuse or exploitation, giving valuable insight into their demographics and outcomes, and into trends over time. It will help us to better understand practice and recording for these children.
This is another important step in building our understanding of how we need to improve.
CPA consultation
This consultation, which will run for 12 weeks, sets out our proposals and invites views on the CPA’s scope, powers, and priorities. We will publish the Government response in summer 2026, alongside plans for legislation to establish the CPA.
This Government are unwavering in their commitment to act. Every child deserves a system that is expert, decisive and compassionate—and today’s announcements mark a bold step toward making that vision a reality.
[HCWS1156]
Franchising in Higher Education Consultation: Government Response
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Today I am announcing the publication of the Government response https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/franchising-in-higher-education to the consultation on franchising in higher education, as announced in the “Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper”. This response sets out the steps we will take to lock in stronger long-term oversight of provision and ensure accountability where it matters most.
Alongside this, the Secretary of State has written to all registered providers https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/letter-to-higher-education-providers-9-december-2025 to reaffirm the shared responsibility for protecting public money from exploitation and asking them to assure themselves that practices are being managed appropriately within their institution and within organisations delivering on their behalf.
There has been a significant expansion in franchised provision in higher education since 2019. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 and other regulatory changes created the conditions for this expansion. Between 2018-19 and 2022-23, the number of franchised students more than doubled, from 50,430 to 135,850, representing 5.7% of all students in the higher education sector. A majority—62%—of franchised students study business and management. This expansion has given rise to concerns regarding quality, governance and the integrity of higher education provision, and recent reports from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have highlighted serious issues, including poor-quality provision and the misuse of public funds.
Students invest heavily in their future and deserve world-class teaching, robust support and genuine value for money. Taxpayers expect absolute assurance that public funds are safeguarded against fraud and deliberate misuse. We will deliver that assurance.
We are tightening the regulatory net. Any franchised provider with 300 or more students will now be subject to direct regulation by the Office for Students as a condition for access to student loan funding. This requirement will be brought in for academic year 2028-29, with the first decisions on designation being made in September 2027.
The requirement on unregistered franchised providers with 300 or more students to register with the OfS will not apply to franchised providers in the following categories: state-funded schools, the statutory further education sector—further education corporations, sixth-form colleges corporations and designated institutions—providers of National Health Service services, including an NHS trust as defined in section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006, police and crime commissioners, local authorities, Government Departments, the armed forces and mayoral combined authorities.
This latest action forms part of a comprehensive strategy to stamp out malpractice and raise standards. It builds on recommendations from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee and complements cross-Government action to prevent fraud and misuse of public funds.
As set out in the written statement in March, the Public Sector Fraud Authority is taking action to ensure cross-Government data sharing is in place to detect and to stamp out fraudulent behaviour where bad actors are targeting several sources of Government funding. These measures will be further enabled by the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which has now completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament and will give Government the powers required to act quickly and decisively.
The Office for Students has already introduced a new initial registration condition requiring providers to have robust and comprehensive arrangements in place to prevent, detect and address fraud and the inappropriate use of public funds. If they have previously received public funds, providers must also demonstrate a track record of managing public money responsibly before gaining registration.
The OfS has also published student outcomes data for all sub-contractual partnerships, which underlines the responsibility lead providers have to ensure that where franchising occurs it is in students’ interest. It has consulted on additional proposals for the oversight of all sub-contractual arrangements in English higher education, and I look forward to the outcome of that consultation early next year.
As set out in the “Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper”, we will be taking legislative powers at the next available opportunity to further strengthen the OfS powers to intervene decisively to tackle poor-quality provision and prevent abuse of public money at registered providers as well as safeguard against provision with poor outcomes for students. This will ensure there is tighter oversight for all franchise arrangements and all other third-party relationships in future, as well as a higher bar for their market entry and expansion.
We want to ensure that higher education continues to be a source of opportunity, excellence and national pride. It should support learners to succeed, drive economic growth and deliver this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. This Government are taking the action needed to end the poor practice of the past and ensure that access to public funding is earned through quality and strong governance.
A copy of the Government response will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1141]
Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this debate and highlighting these important issues. Having spoken to her in our first week in this place as newly elected Members of Parliament, I know she cares deeply about these issues, and I welcome her bringing them to the attention of the House in this Adjournment debate.
I will open my remarks with a word of special thanks to everybody in our country who has stepped up to adopt children. It is an extraordinary act that makes a transformational difference for children and families right across this country. I recognise that self-employed adopters do not have access to statutory adoption pay. I appreciate, too, that they do not qualify for statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance.
Josh MacAlister
I am pleased that the parental leave and pay review is looking at these issues as part of its work, and I encourage Members to engage with the review as it continues.
The Department for Education’s statutory guidance is clear that where self-employed adopters do not qualify for any statutory payment, local authorities can consider making a payment that is equivalent to the maternity allowance.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister mentioned the review and said that it is under way. He did not mention how long it will take, and I note that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) asked for some guidance on the timeline. I would be grateful if he could give that and, further, if he could use his good offices to encourage local authorities to let potential self-employed adopters know that their discretionary funds exist because, as the hon. Lady mentioned, most do not.
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Member for those questions. I will directly answer the questions that the hon. Member for South West Devon asked in a moment, but I take the broader point about encouraging local authorities to ensure that adopters in their area are aware of the support available to them.
As I was saying, local authorities can consider making a payment that is equivalent to the maternity allowance. That allows authorities to target adopters most in need of financial support, though I take the hon. Member’s point—a point powerfully made—on the inconsistency of that offer across England at the moment.
To answer the hon. Member’s questions directly, first, the parental leave review started in July and is expected to last 18 months, so we should be able to work back from there on when we expect its conclusions and publication. The review has a wide scope, but specific work on adoption support is firmly within that scope.
Finally, I turn to broader adoption support, which the hon. Member also asked me about. The Department for Education does make wider support available for all adoptive families. This year, £50 million was made available to support adopters and adoptive families through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. I appreciate that the changes we made to the ASGSF in April have been very difficult for some families, and I have listened carefully to what families have told me about those changes. I speak regularly with adopters and those working in the adoption system. We will start a formal process of engagement on long-term decisions in the new year. Details of the ASGSF from April 2026 will be made available once departmental business planning decisions are completed, and I expect that to be very soon.
So far this year, we have approved applications to support over 14,000 families through the fund. We have also invested £8.8 million this year into Adoption England for services across the country. Adoption England is doing a huge range of work to develop support for families through regional adoption agencies—for example, a new core offer of support for the first 12 to 18 months of a match between a child and a family.
Fundamentally, beyond adoption leave, the Government are taking bold steps to transform the entire children’s social care system. That is set out in our recently announced Families First Partnership programme. We have upped the funding to take it to £2.4 billion over the next three years. That change is fundamental to the whole system because it will reset the system—in a way that many Members across the House have for years argued for—away from late-stage crisis intervention and towards earlier, more intensive support for families, of all shapes and sizes, and that should be the bedrock of the future children’s social care system. In parallel, the investment and changes going into the NHS to ensure that health services can respond to the mental health needs of families and children—particularly the most vulnerable—will also act as a bedrock. We recognise, however, that adoptive families have special support needs.
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for securing the debate and for her speech. I welcome her acknowledgment of the difference that adopters make across the country. I also welcome the attention of the parental pay and leave review to this area of work. I look forward to engaging in the new year with adopters and Members from across the House, as well as with stakeholders who work in the adoption system, including my Department’s adopter reference group, as we work to confirm the long-term arrangements for adoption support.
Question put and agreed to.