Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I must inform the House that Lords amendment 38X engages Commons financial privilege. If this Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 26
Power to require internet service providers to restrict or prevent access by children to internet services
Olivia Bailey
I will finish this section of my speech and then give way.
As the Government have consistently said and as sector leaders have repeated, this is a challenge of enforcement, and I genuinely believe that the package of measures we have already put in place will ensure effective bans of phones in schools.
I have the greatest of respect for colleagues across the House who have argued that placing this guidance on a statutory footing could support enforcement, and we have tabled that amendment today. I am thrilled to see that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has indicated her support for this position.
The Bill before us contains vital measures to keep our children safe online and offline. These measures are desperately needed, yet this Bill has been languishing for 15 months. The time has come to stop playing political games and get this Bill on the statute book.
SEND Provision and Reform
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Student Loans
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Bonavia
I am afraid that I will not give way, because I want to explore this a bit further.
The Opposition really have not thought this motion through at all. Are they going to have a commission saying, “We have worked out that this degree is going to produce this value”? How is that going to affect the economy at a time when we perhaps need more creative degrees? How is this all going to work? There will be more bureaucracy and more costs, and the price is going to be paid by our young people who cannot choose their own futures. That is what would happen if this really misguided motion were implemented. This plan is not even half-baked—it is as oven-ready as Boris Johnson’s pathetic Brexit deal, which this Government are trying to fix.
We cannot change the moment when the tree was planted by Opposition parties, but we can tend that tree now. I have full faith that this Labour Government will do just that.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2026
Finance Act 2026
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Act 2026
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Act 2026.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that Lords amendments 21, 37, 38, 39, 44, 101 and 105 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 1
Cessation of Child Protection Plans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 21, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 37 and 38, Government motions to disagree, amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 38, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.
Lords amendment 41, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 44, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 102, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 105, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104
and 107 to 121.
Olivia Bailey
Children’s voices are heard rarely in this place and are too often ignored in our society, so I say at the outset that it is truly a special privilege to play my part in the passage of this landmark legislation. This Bill is about creating the conditions in which every child can achieve and thrive, to ensure safer and more secure childhoods, to tackle the scrouge of child poverty and to deliver high and rising school standards. Today I ask the House to renew its commitment to that ambition for our children and our country. I extend my thanks to my colleague and friend, Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, for her skilful stewardship of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to back the Government amendments made in the other place that increase the ambition of the legislation.
In part 1 of the Bill, we have introduced a new duty on local housing authorities to, with consent, notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. We have also strengthened the Government’s work to put the voices of children at the heart of decisions about their futures, with amendments on family group decision making and the kinship local offer.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I completely agree with the Minister’s position; parents should have the choice to send their child to whichever school they believe is best for them. In relation to admissions, one of my first cases after becoming an MP was an automatic off-rolling of a child after she had been absent for 20 days, despite the absence having been communicated to the school and extended due to a bereavement. She was off-rolled with no process and no review, and she was out of school for nine months. Will the Minister consider reviewing this punitive policy to ensure that there is a formal review before a child is removed from their preferred school?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Minister is being very generous with her time. However, she will be aware that many Members wish to speak in this debate. As it stands, that will be very difficult, given the time constraints.
Olivia Bailey
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about that case, I am happy to look into it for him. Off-rolling absolutely should not be happening.
Let me turn to the crucial issue of allergies. Lords amendment 105 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members across the House who have been campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools, including my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). Last week, we published draft statutory guidance, which will be in force in September. It sets out clearly that schools should have a dedicated allergy safety policy and stock spare adrenalin devices, as well as whole-staff allergy awareness training.
At the launch, I had the privilege of joining Helen and Peter Blythe, and their wonderful daughter Etta. Their campaigning in memory of their son, Benedict, has been both brave and instrumental. We recognise their argument about allergy safety requiring the strongest protections. That is why I am pleased to confirm—with Helen in the Gallery today—that we will put Benedict’s law on the statute book, with our own amendment to require schools to have and publish an allergy safety policy, to have regard to statutory guidance and to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to allergy safety. This will protect children with allergies in schools and ensure that our guidance can evolve as clinical advice changes. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Helen once again for her bravery and brilliant campaigning.
Olivia Bailey
I cannot; I must make progress—I am so sorry.
We understand that we need to act swiftly, and rest assured that through these powers we will be able to do so. Let me be extremely clear that it is not a question of if we act, but how.
Finally, let me briefly turn to Lords amendment 106. We have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but because previous guidance was not sufficiently clear, we have published strengthened guidance so there can be no doubt that, from bell to bell, schools should be mobile phone free. We are also acting to ensure that bans are properly enforced. Our network of attendance and behaviour hubs will provide targeted support to schools that are struggling. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phones policies and enforcement. Our consultation is seeking views on whether we need to go further to support schools—for example, whether the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing.
Hon. Members have the chance tonight to vote to keep children safe online and offline, to tackle child poverty by putting money back into parents’ pockets, and to put in place a schools system that enables every child across all our schools to achieve and thrive. I urge the House to support this vision for our children and our country’s future, and to back the Government’s amendments in lieu. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit.
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the Lords amendments to the Bill that are of most interest to the Education Committee, following our scrutiny work on the Bill and in relation to a number of other subsequent and ongoing inquiries.
I welcome the decision to place the expansion of the entitlement to free school meals in the Bill. The Education Committee welcomes that expansion, which will increase the number of children who can benefit from a nutritious hot meal in the middle of the day. Combined with the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, it will substantially reduce the scourge of hunger, which harms children’s health and holds back their learning.
My Committee has recommended that the Government introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals. The use of universal credit data, which the Government already hold, would make auto-enrolment much easier to achieve. I urge the Minister to ensure, by implementing auto-enrolment, that no child misses out on the meal to which they are entitled.
I welcome the introduction of a requirement to notify health and education services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. I have seen at first hand many times in my constituency the destabilising impact of temporary accommodation on children’s lives. It is usually the worst quality accommodation and is the most likely to be overcrowded, damp and mouldy. It is often far away from school and friends, with no space to do homework, and brings the constant underlying insecurity of not having a permanent home. It can have profound consequences for children’s health and education, and the new duty to notify is an important first step in ensuring that children can be supported.
Helen Hayes
I will not, because of the time limit.
However, there are important differences of opinion between stakeholders on the best ways in which to regulate young people’s access to smartphones and social media, so I consider it right for the Government to consult. I welcome the amendments that will allow legislation to be introduced without delay. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some assurances about the timescale for the introduction of legislation following the consultation, which I believe will be necessary.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to welcome the Bill back to the House of Commons, some 15 months after it started its passage at the beginning of last year. I am, however, extremely disappointed that the Government have provided such a small amount of time for us to discuss the numerous Lords amendments, and that they are throwing so many of them out. I am grateful to our colleagues in the other place for their diligence and their efforts to strengthen and improve the Bill.
Lords amendment 41 and 42, tabled by my noble Friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to introduce a price cap on the amount of branded uniform that a school can require parents to buy. We know that the price of uniform causes real hardship for families, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. As we have just heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), it often causes genuine anxiety. Children are sometimes sent home for wearing the wrong item of uniform, which disrupts their learning. While we strongly support the Government’s intention to introduce a branded uniform items cap, I implore the Minister to look again at the detail.
The Liberal Democrats have proposed a uniform price cap, which would keep the prices down for parents while giving schools the flexibility to choose their own uniform policy and decide how many branded items they wish to include. The Minister talked about perverse incentives and driving up prices for parents. In fact, a monetary cap would do precisely the opposite, because it would be using the market and incentivising suppliers to drive down their prices. Obviously, they would want to be able to sell more items of branded clothing within that cap. I appreciate that the Government point to their manifesto commitment, but there is nothing shameful about changing one’s mind—or, dare I say, U-turning—when the evidence demands it. That is something that the Government should feel pretty comfortable with by now.
Let me turn to the theme of supporting families. Lords amendment 16 would require the Government to review the per-child funding in the adoption and special guardianship support fund following the devastating cuts that they implemented last year. The fund provides therapeutic support for some of the most vulnerable children in society, allowing them to process their trauma and relearn how to trust. As a result of last year’s cuts, many adoptive parents and kinship carers can barely afford to pay for needs assessments, let alone the complex therapy that the children actually require. A number of them have written to me from across the country about their experiences since the Government cut their entitlements. Heartbreakingly, many mention the threat of adoption breakdown looming over their family.
The fund is a lifeline for families, but that lifeline is fraying. We are told that tough choices must be made, but the Department for Education’s advertising budget hit nearly £50 million last year. That is a £15 million increase in the last two years. Just halving that budget could restore crucial therapeutic support to thousands of children. Will the Minister support our amendment that seeks to review the funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and commit herself to restoring individual grants, or are this Government more interested in glossy advertising campaigns than in supporting the most vulnerable children?
Speaking of vulnerable children, let me turn to Lords amendment 17, tabled by Baroness Tyler, who has done amazing work on the issue of sibling contact rights. The amendment seeks to close a loophole in the current regulations so that siblings, when one is in care and the other is not, are able to remain in contact. It would require a child’s care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all the child’s siblings, whether they are in care or not, as far as that is consistent with the child’s welfare.
The Government have said that there is no need to close the loophole because the duty already exists, but I ask Labour Members whether they can be content with such an answer when it is clear that the present system is not working. We have heard again, from the Chair of the Education Committee and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), about the importance of this issue.
I have been given permission to share Abby’s story. Abby grew up in a residential care home and lost contact with two of her sisters, which was subsequently restored. However, I do not have time to go into that now because the time for debate has been so limited this evening, but I hope that we will return to this subject again if the Government insist on doing the wrong thing and throwing out an important amendment that a number of their Back Benchers clearly support.
The Government motion on amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38 further amends the UK GDPR legislation to tighten control over children’s personal data online. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for that change for over a year. While we welcome the Government’s copying of another of our proposals, simply granting themselves the power to do something at some point is no protection for children until they act, and action has not been forthcoming. The same is true of the second part of the motion. Again, we have a consultation that appears to be dithering over whether something should be done at all.
We Liberal Democrats have made it very clear to the Government that if they want our support, they must make a firm commitment to act, and to act quickly. We are calling for a specific implementation timeline and a change in the consultation’s terms of reference, so that it becomes a question of how, and not if, we regulate social media. We have a thought-out policy that is ready to go if the Government want to take another idea of ours. We have proposed a harms-based approach to online regulation: age-rating user-to-user services according to the addictiveness of their features, the harmfulness of their content and the impact on mental health.
The solution is practical and future-proofed, and would provide the incentive to make the online world safer for us all. Unlike the Government’s approach, our approach would ensure that these sweeping powers are not concentrated in the hands of a single Secretary of State. Are the Government truly comfortable with bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation? They must consider the precedent that they are setting. We are handing a loaded gun to any future Administration, of any political complexion, to decide which websites are harmful and which are not. For the sake of our children’s safety and our democratic standards, I urge the Government to think again.
Finally, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches made a promise to the campaigners, the charities and the thousands of parents who have written to us that we would not play party politics on this issue. While we may differ in our approach, we will oppose the removal of Lords amendment 38, because we need the Government to hear the voices of the thousands of parents and children who are desperate for something to change. Every hour that this House spends debating whether we should do something, another algorithm is being developed to exploit a vulnerable child. By opposing the removal of the amendment, we are sending a clear message that the safety of our children is a non-negotiable right.
Bereaved Children: Government Support
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We come to the Backbench Business debate on Government support for bereaved children. I call Christine Jardine to speak for up to 15 minutes.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I would like to add my personal thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) not just for securing today’s debate but for being such a powerful champion of this cause. I came to it myself through leading a petitions debate. The hon. Member took part in it, which I really appreciated at the time.
I introduced that debate as a member of the Petitions Committee, but it opened up my own experience. As Members may know, part of preparing to open a petitions debate is meeting the petitioners. For this debate, in December 2024, the petitioners were Mark Lemon, who is leading a petition to collect data, which has been touched on, and John Adams, who is leading a petition to make bereavement part of the national curriculum. I spoke to them and they both had their own stories, just like the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who touched on some of the experiences she has heard about too. It reminded me that this can touch us in many other ways.
In my case, my dad got throat cancer when I was in my teens. He passed away when I was 20 years old. I was mostly away at university at the time, but I had a younger brother who was 15 when my father passed, and I did not really appreciate at the time just how hard it was on him. My mum was overcome with it all and he did not have the life that I subsequently was lucky enough to have. He had it hard: he was out of school and had some tough years, and he is no longer with us. Looking back, it would have made a real difference if the support that some people have, some of which has improved over the years, had been there.
There has been progress, and around the country there are many fantastic organisations. We have heard about Winston’s Wish, which took part in and supported the petition debate that I led. In my constituency, there is a charity called Stand-by-me, which has been fantastic. I met representatives at a summer fair in Knebworth, where I also met a mum and her young daughter Evie. They showed me what could be done. Evie had support from the charity and also became a young ambassador, which is about kids getting support from other kids who have been through it. That is great; however, we have already heard that that support is patchy around our country. I am really glad that there has been progress.
Of the two petitions I mentioned, the Government have listened to the first, which was about having bereavement on the national curriculum. The Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), was at the debate, took that on board and it has now happened—we now have that in the relationships, health and sex education strategy. However, it has to be implemented, so I will ask the Minister: how is that going? How are we monitoring it, are schools taking it up and are we giving the schools what they need?
On that second petition about collecting data, how can we know the problem we face if we do not know the extent of that problem? How many children are out there and, for whatever reason, they or their families are not reported through the system? How can we make it easier for that to happen? Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man or woman to change that approach. We can do it—where there is a will, we can do it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West made the point that there has been progress, but I ask this Government to go even further. There are kids out there who need that support and we must do all that we can, in this place and elsewhere, to provide it.
Caroline Voaden
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I could not agree more.
In 2017, it all changed: the previous Conservative Government replaced the widowed parent’s allowance with the bereavement support payment—an 18-month flat-rate payment paid regardless of the child’s age. That decision drew cross-party criticism and was opposed at the time by us, the SNP and Labour MPs. It severed the historical link between national insurance contributions and long-term family protection. It created measurable disadvantage for widowed parents and bereaved children. The bereavement support payment has not been uprated since it was introduced, and it remains at 2011 figures. The very minimum we are asking for today is for the Government to uprate it in line with inflation, and I ask the Minister to respond to this call. However, I want to see the Government go further and consider calls from campaigning organisations, such as WAY, to reinstate a bereavement payment that lasts until children leave school, to iron out the disadvantage that children are under from the moment they lose a parent.
Grief does not last 18 months; bereavement lasts a lifetime, and for children it comes back again and again in huge, destabilising waves every time they reach a different stage of growth and understanding of what death really means. Believe me, you have to keep going through it again and again as they get older, explaining exactly what death means—“No, he’s not coming back”—what they did to his body, and all that stuff. It goes on right the way to adulthood. Parents navigate this through a child’s life. Adding the extra strain of financial worries on to a widowed parent makes a difficult job far harder and puts a bereaved child into an even more dangerous place.
Lucy from West Sussex is 31 and a teacher. Her husband died aged 36 from sudden adult death syndrome in January 2023—out of the blue, with no warning. Her children were nine, six and three when their dad died. She said:
“Losing one income overnight has a huge knock-on effect. Combined with rising living costs, there are times I genuinely struggled to afford food. I always made sure my children ate, but that often meant skipping meals myself or relying on the cheapest food just to get through the week. I’ve had to use food banks.
Even now those payments would still make a meaningful difference to us as a family—not as a luxury, but as support that recognises what has been lost and what continues long after the funeral.”
We know that poverty is directly linked to poorer life chances, reduced attainment in school and more vulnerability to harms, and there is a societal impact to this too. Taking it to its very extreme, there is an association between bereavement and negative outcomes, so it is perhaps unsurprising that bereavement is prevalent among people in custody. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has reported that 41% of young offenders have experienced the death of a parent as a child— a rate significantly higher than for the general population. Other research shows that up to 90% of young men aged 16 to 20 in specific institutions have suffered at least one bereavement, with many experiencing multiple traumatic losses.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, we do not do grief well in this country. It is still often something to be brushed under the carpet. I know from my personal experience that it makes people embarrassed and awkward. It is something to be avoided, not talked about. We desperately need grief education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West said, because it could be transformational.
On top of our financial calls on the Government today, we support the Winston’s Wish “Ask Me” campaign to make nurseries, schools, colleges and universities places where grieving students feel seen, understood and supported. Right now, at least one child or young person in every classroom across the UK is grieving the death of a parent or sibling, and 72% of students who were bereaved while in education said that they had never been asked what support they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West said, they need to be asked, “What do you need, and how can we support you?”
I remember vividly having to go through the story of my children’s bereavement again and again with different teachers every time they moved up in school or moved to a new school, to make sure they were aware that the children had lost their dad when they were very young. I often felt that the teachers just did not understand the impact, or how the loss could manifest itself at different ages as they grew.
Emmeline told me that her brother died aged 10 after a long illness. She said:
“I was 11 and my sister was 13. We said goodbye to him in the hospital, but it didn’t feel real, and when he died, we had so many unanswered questions that we didn’t feel able to ask for fear of upsetting our already grief-stricken parents. Although family members, teachers and our friends were kind to us, we weren’t offered counselling or professional support—I doubt it existed then—but in hindsight, this was something we really needed.
I had struggled with the grief for years and as an adult sought counselling to unravel those feelings, to learn how to cope with them when they resurfaced and understand the impact losing my brother had on me.”
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) referred to that in his very powerful speech.
“I am sure had this help been available when I was younger, I would have been able to express my grief more openly and come to terms with it much earlier.
I can completely see how losing a close family member could negatively change the course of a child’s life and in some cases, impact society itself.”
For people who work with children as teachers, care workers, youth leaders or wellbeing professionals, understanding developmental grief is essential. Grief is not rare; it is a common childhood experience that shapes how children see themselves and the world. I know that we are asking a lot of schools at the moment, with big changes on the horizon once again, but it is a small but absolutely fundamental ask of nurseries and schools to take the time to understand how grief affects children and how they can be supported. Schools must have the tools to signpost families to support organisations.
I absolutely agree with the calls for data to be collected on how many children have suffered such bereavements, which could be done through registrar offices. Until we understand the problem, we cannot begin to fix it. I was going to ask the Minister to talk to the Department for Education—I was not sure who would respond to the debate—but he is from the Department for Education. Can we discuss how to implement better understanding of developmental grief across the education lifetime, and find a way to collect data through registrar services? Will he talk with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about uprating bereavement support payments in line with inflation, and begin the conversation about reinstating a bereavement payment that lasts until children leave school, in order to give them the best chance of overcoming the impact of the death of a parent?
Bereavement is a long, complicated and difficult journey. Members can see that, even after 23 years, it is still very, very real for me. Adding financial hardship to that journey is unjust and discriminatory, and it is time that it ended.
LGBT+ History Month
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank my indefatigable hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for leading this debate so well.
Let me start by celebrating how far we have come. I was 14 when Labour came to power in 1997, and I already knew that I was gay. From 1997 onwards, I recognised that politics had a direct impact on my life. The John Major Government had already lowered but not equalised the age of consent in 1994, but it took a Labour Government to lift the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual people serving in the military in 2000; to equalise the age of consent in 2001; to repeal section 28 in 2003; to pass the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004; to equalise adoption rights for same-sex couples in 2005; and to pass the Equality Act 2010.
The 1997 election saw out gay politicians elected for the first time, including my predecessor as the MP for Exeter, Sir Ben Bradshaw, who was the second elected, by around an hour, after the former Member for Enfield Southgate. He faced the most appalling homophobic campaign in Exeter, but the people of Exeter saw through that and soundly elected him to be their MP. A corner was truly turned for our community in British society.
Although all the legislative changes come from this place, we must always remember that it is activists, campaigners and ordinary people—LGBTQ people and their families, friends and allies—who have always had to make the case for equal rights from the outside in. As with many other communities, it is my job in this place to listen and act to ensure that we continue on the path of equality.
In Exeter and across the south-west, that community network still thrives. The Intercom Trust is a south-west LGBT+ charity that last year served more than 4,000 service users from Exeter, Plymouth and Truro offices, providing a free phone helpline, one-to-one support and advocacy, a domestic abuse and sexual violence support service, hate crime support, school groups, counselling and much more.
The first Exeter Pride event was held only in 2008, during LGBT History Month. The founders, Alan Quick and Michael Hall, hosted the event at the central library—another very good case for why libraries are so important in our communities—featuring art displays, games for children, panel discussions and stalls. Alan still plays a vital role in the life of our city, not only by publishing newspapers, but as a trustee of Inclusive Exeter. Indeed, I saw him just last Sunday, at our fantastic Hongkonger community celebration of the lunar new year.
However, we know that while progress has been rapid in the UK, it is not all one way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) referenced, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are up by 44% in the last five years. If we add trans people, the statistics are worse—an 88% rise in hate crimes. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has stated that he did not support equal marriage at the time; he declared it a “wrong” thing to have done and to have been brought in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has informed the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that he was going to mention him.
Steve Race
I absolutely did, Madam Deputy Speaker; I sent the hon. Gentleman an email before this debate.
In the wake of the Supreme Court judgment and a relentless campaign waged against trans people in some quarters, with funding from outside this country flooding in to stoke division, it has never been more important for people like me in positions like mine to say: I see trans people, and I recognise your contribution in all areas of our society. Trans people have always existed and will continue to exist, and I will do everything that I can to stand with you to ensure that you can live your lives as equal citizens in our country.
That is why I am proud to be a Labour MP. While the political consensus fragments in some quarters, in this place and beyond, in the pursuit of headlines and knee-jerk politics, I know that this Government continue to stand on the side of equality and fairness. We will soon see draft legislation on a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, thanks to the work of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) has ensured that we will legislate to make crimes motivated by prejudice against people because they are LGBT, because they have a disability or because of their gender identity, an aggravated hate crime.
We are improving the experience of LGBT+ personnel and veterans in the armed forces and delivering financial recognition to LGBT veterans as per the Etherton review. We are tackling HIV transmissions to meet our target of no new HIV transmissions by 2030. We are improving access to healthcare and providing nearly £500,000-worth of specialist funding for LGBT+-focused domestic violence services. We will continue to reject the politics of division and hate, and we will build on Labour’s long history of fighting for equality.
However, we must look at the international situation. I thank the Elton John AIDS Foundation and Kaleidoscope for their work and support in this area. Since 1983, 84 countries have decriminalised consensual same-sex relations, and 65 have recognised marriage equality. Countries across Asia have legalised same-sex marriage, including Taiwan in 2019, Nepal in 2023 and Thailand in 2025, and same-sex relations have been decriminalised in Africa by Botswana in 2019, Mauritius in 2023 and Namibia in 2024. New Zealand became the first country to recognise non-binary gender markers on passports, and India, Pakistan and Bangladesh recognise hijra, or third-gender individuals. Globally, we have also seen positive trends in adoption rights and legal gender recognition. In 2016, after sustained campaigning by activists worldwide, the UN voted to create a mandate for the independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, which was a landmark moment in international human rights protection.
However, 65 nations, which is nearly a third, still classify LGBTQ+ people as criminals, and homosexuality is punishable by death in 12 countries. In the last two years alone, several countries have passed harsh new laws targeting LGBT+ people. In 2024, Georgia banned gender transitions, legal gender recognition, Pride events and LGBTQ+ symbols. For the first time, Mali criminalised homosexuality with a punishment of up to seven years in prison in 2024. In the United States, over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ Bills were introduced, aiming to restrict trans rights and LGBTQ+ education.
Burkina Faso’s Government passed a law in September 2025 banning homosexuality, with those found guilty facing two to five years in prison, according to the state broadcaster. The draft law was unanimously passed by 71 unelected members of the country’s transitional Government, who have been in place since the military seized power. In late 2025, Ghana parliamentarians reintroduced a Bill to criminalise identifying as LGBTQ, with penalties of up to three years in prison. Funding or forming an LGBTQ-related group would be punished by up to five years in prison.
I recently met LGBT activists from Hong Kong and Botswana who talked to me about the repression that communities in those places still face, as well as the support they receive from Kaleidoscope and the funding for programmes that comes from the FCDO’s official development assistance, which are vital to some communities around the world. LGBT rights are not just a nice to have; they are fundamental to human rights, and they are fundamental to healthy societies too.
For the first time since UNAIDS began reporting on punitive laws a decade ago, the number of countries criminalising same-sex sexual activity and gender expression has increased. An analysis of data from 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa found that HIV prevalence among men who are gay, bisexual or have sex with other men in countries that criminalise same-sex relations is five times higher than in non-criminalised settings.
I am proud that the UK is leaning in yet again and supporting the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria with a new £850 million pledge. However, as Elton John and David Furnish pointed out in a recent independent op-ed:
“the force which enabled Aids to become a global catastrophe was not immunological; it was fear and apathy.”
Stigma, homophobia and transphobia play as big a role in health epidemics as the virus and the healthcare system itself. That is why Pride still matters, and that is why LGBT History Month still matters.
While we have achieved so much in the UK, we still need to fight to retain our rights here, because around the world homophobia and inequality still exist, hurting individuals and communities. The UK has a vital role to play, partly because of the historical context of colonialism, in supporting the progress towards a more equal world, and I am proud to say that I believe we will continue to do so.
Marie Goldman
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for reminding us that this is about people. They are not statistics—they are people, whose everyday experiences and lives are being harmed by the decisions that are being made right now and by the awful, appalling, divisive rhetoric that is coming from some parts of the community, and some parts of the political community in particular. We must fight against it, and I thank the hon. Member very much for reminding us that this is about people and that their voices must be heard.
As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and reflect on the historical achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, we must also look forward, challenge prejudice wherever it appears, and recognise our responsibility as Members of Parliament to continue to push for LGBTQ+ equality.
Olivia Bailey
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I do pay tribute to Lord Etherton, and the Government are driving forward on all the recommendations of that review. I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Member to discuss the important points he makes and to work on a cross-party basis on this important issue.
As I was saying, that courage is needed now more than ever. Around the world, hostility and violence are rising and hard-won protections are being rolled back. For the first time in recent years, the number of jurisdictions that criminalise LGBT+ people has risen—from 62 to 65 in the past year alone. In this country, LGBT+ people are facing new and evolving challenges. I have spoken to LGBT+ organisations across the country about the rise of dangerous chemsex, online harassment, mental health concerns and overwhelmed support services. In our politics, we are contending with the rise of a populist right that thrives on the politics of division.
We will stand against the politics of division and hate, because our history teaches us that our stories are our own, claimed and retold by us, not just to remember but as a rallying call to never lose hope that love and pride will conquer fear and prejudice. We will honour the courage of those who have come before us and leave this place better for those who come after us. I will be very proud to work with all hon. Members to do just that.
Nadia Whittome
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had no idea I was expected to wind up.
Madam Deputy Speaker
There is no need to wind up, if the hon. Member does not want to.
Nadia Whittome
I just want to thank everyone so much for taking part in the debate. Everyone made incredibly powerful contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I hope that the Government—and, indeed, everyone—heed his words.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As I am sure Members will agree, that was the best wind-up ever.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.
Early Education and Childcare
Judith Cummins Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that we are finishing this statement at 1.30 pm. Can we keep questions very succinct?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
This September, Poppleton Road primary school will be opening its nursery for the little people of York, lifting families out of poverty and giving them the best start. Will the Minister say how he will evaluate this programme? It is really important that we are able to prove the case that the investment in early years makes a difference to people’s life chances.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a mother who at one point had three children under four and had to take time out of the workplace, I welcome the great strides made by this Labour Government to support parents and children. In Scotland, parents have access to 1,140 funded hours, but for too many parents—particularly those who want to work in the hospitality, retail and care sectors—that just does not work, due to the inflexible nature of those hours. Will the Minister commit to learning the lessons from Scotland and consider flexible hours going forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that a lot of people want to get in. Please keep your questions short.
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, these issues are devolved, but I look forward to hearing her thoughts and views on them. I encourage her to write to me, and I can certainly raise her points with the relevant teams across the Department and across Government.
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend will know that our landmark strategy sets out our first steps towards delivering a decade of national renewal and strengthening family services. We are always keen to learn from other countries, because in order to achieve our ambitions as a country, we need to learn from elsewhere. He will know the value I place, as a former playworker, on play provision, and I am happy to discuss these issues further with him.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are still a national treasure to me. I thank the Minister for his important statement, which will make a huge difference to young people and families in my constituency. Over recess, I held a roundtable for parents of SEND children in Harlow. The No. 1 thing that they said would support their children was early intervention to ensure they have the best possible start in life, which will support them in schools and later in employment. Will the Minister guarantee that this early intervention—this proactive approach to childcare and education—will be a golden thread that runs through this Labour Government?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his proactivity in bringing parents together to hear their thoughts and views. We are a Government who are listening to what parents tell us, and we want to act to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. He is absolutely right that investing in early education and supporting early intervention around any additional needs that children have are vital in ensuring that every child gets the best possible outcomes and life chances. I know that he will continue to work with us to make sure that happens in his constituency and across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes the statement. I thank the Minister and Members for helping each other out and keeping questions and answers succinct.
Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life
Judith Cummins Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Williams
I welcome and echo my hon. Friend’s comments. I have supported citizenship over many years—certainly from when I worked for the YMCA locally.
The Conservatives unforgivably turned their backs on our children and young people when they needed our support the most. I am so proud to be a Labour MP, working alongside a Labour Government who are firmly on the side of children, young people and their families. We are beginning to see the righting of the past 14 years of wrongs.
I have been to Milton and Greenways primary academies in my constituency and visited the breakfast clubs that are being rolled out. I have seen at first hand how the kids arrive tired and hungry, but then they start their day ready to learn and full of energy—no longer with hungry bellies.
I am proud, too, that this Labour Government are extending free school meals. That will feed more than 6,700 children across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove from next year. Being well fed means that children learn better, and it is also a critical step in lifting kids out of poverty—something on which I have focused my whole working career.
I am so pleased also that Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove has one of the very first school-based nurseries, which is being rolled out at the brilliant Smallthorne primary academy. This will not only ease pressures on hard-working families who need a helping hand; it will help kids to prepare for the transition to school, and will help to close the development gap early on. This is exactly what a Labour Government are all about: supporting our kids and young people to thrive. I am proud to be playing my role in helping to transform the lives of families across my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025, the Ayes were 334 and the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.
On the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025, No. 737), the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Educational Attainment of Boys
Judith Cummins Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have noticed that time is ticking on, and I want to get as many people in as possible. I would therefore be grateful if Members could limit their remarks to around four minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. There is an immediate three-minute time limit.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Today I will speak about how boys from more deprived backgrounds have fewer academic and non-academic skills, and how it is harming their ability to get decent jobs in the post-industrial era. This topic was the subject of my second PhD paper, and although I cannot force Members to read it, I can certainly force them all to listen today.
The puzzle that my paper addressed was why non-graduate men are finding it so hard to get jobs in the post-industrial economy. The employment rate for non-graduate men has fallen from about 90% in the 1970s to about 75% in 2020. The manufacturing jobs that they used to do have disappeared, but if employment rates have risen as they have, why can they not get jobs in the service sector? The answer—or at least part of the answer—is in the earliest years of young boys’ lives. By the age of five, the least-skilled boys have lower academic and non-academic skills than the least-skilled girls. That makes it hard for them to attain in school and to develop the perseverance and social skills that they need. The physical skills that were rewarded in the post-industrial economy lost out in the move to the service economy.
How do we fix this and ensure that young boys can get the jobs that they need in our economy? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) has pointed to, it is about the earliest years and even before birth. It is first about making their parents’ lives affordable. Less time for parents worrying about bills means more quality time with their kids, and more money in the pockets of parents means more psychological and material resources to invest in their children. Secondly, investing in high-quality early years education is probably the highest returning investment that any Government can make. Thirdly, we have to create good jobs for graduates and non-graduates to move into, for both men and women. Mass production manufacturing is not coming back, but we in government can create good non-graduate jobs in construction, healthcare and education. We must invest in our physical and social infrastructure to create the good jobs we need, where we need them.
Every person should be able to live a decent life, but as things stand, too many people cannot. There are many young men whose fathers left school and got decent jobs at the local factory, but those young men cannot do the same today. That disappointment turns to depression, anger and division. Rather than coming together, we are falling apart. Strength is found in each of us doing well—each of us doing so with a common purpose and connection. It is for us in this place, on this side, to build that nation.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Can I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this incredibly important debate and on his powerful and insightful opening speech? It behoves all of us to spend more time on this topic, so I am grateful that he has made me look into it more than I had previously. It goes without saying that our education system should enable every child to flourish, no matter their gender, needs or background, but as we have heard all too clearly already, for too long cohorts of boys have failed to thrive in our education system in the way that they should, with a widening attainment gap between boys and girls, particularly among white working-class boys.
We have heard the statistics already, and I note that many of them come from the excellent report by the Centre for Social Justice, but they bear repetition because they are so shocking. Where 75% of girls are school-ready, only 60% of boys are. In GCSE exams boys achieve on average half a grade lower than girls across every subject, and at A-level girls outperform boys by an average of over a grade and a half across their best three subjects. Too many boys are quite clearly failing to reach their potential at school, and this is having severe and long-lasting consequences for our society and the economy.
Since the pandemic alone, the number of young men aged 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased by a staggering 40%. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, men with no qualifications are nearly twice as likely as women with no qualifications to be unemployed, and if they are employed, they are more likely to work in hazardous, menial or stagnant roles. That makes men less likely to look after their mental and physical health, leading to higher rates of substance abuse, smoking and alcohol consumption, lower life expectancy, and much higher rates of imprisonment and death by suicide.
It is hardly surprising that so many boys feel hopeless. Some 41% of teenagers report that they have been taught that young men are a problem for society. Tim Page, service co-ordinator at Catch22, said:
“There is no trust or hope in the future, a young man from a disadvantaged background has no clear path towards making a future for themselves, the only options for hundreds of boys and young men I have worked with are crime or benefits.”
I think that should make us all stop and reflect.
Education is obviously vital in tackling this tragic and disturbing trend, not just to enable pupils to achieve good grades and a decent salary, but to inspire our children so that they grow up to do good and important things as part of a thriving community and society. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland; I think it probably is time for a gender-specific strategy looking at boys in particular, but as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), pointed out, some of the wider systemic challenges facing our education system have a particular impact on boys. As the Government are considering a number of these issues, I think it would be worth looking at them through a gender-specific lens.
We need good teachers to stay in our boys’ lives and to guide and encourage them, whether on career options for the future or just as good role models, yet over the past 12 years more than 40,000 state school teachers left within one year of qualifying, and just 24% of the overall teaching workforce are male and 30% of primary schools have no male teacher at all. I was thinking about this last night, actually. Both my children are at primary school. One of them will leave in the next few weeks, and by far and away the teacher that she has talked about the most in her seven years there has been a male teacher. He has only been teaching her for a day a week in year 6, but all the kids love him and look up to him. I have never heard them speak about any other teacher in such a way. It is largely a female-dominated school, and it is wonderful to see such affection for a male teacher and such a role model for all the children, both girls and boys.
Many attribute the shortage of teachers—both male and female—to the conditions that teachers face and a lack of career progression. I believe that the presence of more male teachers would normalise learning as a suitable activity for men and boys and may especially help children who do not have positive male role models at home. However, as the Minister knows, schools are facing the impossible task of trying to find more money in their already squeezed budgets to cover underfunded national insurance increases and teacher pay rises. While the Government have promised to recruit 6,500 more teachers, I have yet to see how they will be able to achieve that.
Some of the hopelessness that many boys are experiencing also stems from inadequate mental health support. We know that boys are twice as likely as girls to be excluded from school. Sadly, exclusion and criminal activity are too often intimately related. Those who are excluded multiple times from school are more likely to have a younger age of first conviction.
Mental health researchers have noted that boys in emotional mental distress tend to use coping strategies that externalise into violence and destruction, while girls are more likely to internalise into self-harm and depression. We Liberal Democrats have long called for a dedicated qualified mental health practitioner to be placed in every primary and secondary school to help tackle mental health and behavioural concerns early. While I am glad that the Government are continuing to roll out mental health support teams in schools, I fear that those teams are really overstretched, because they are often shared between several primary and secondary schools, with perhaps half a day or a day a week of mental health practitioner time in each, meaning that children do not have consistent access five days a week to a trusted person to support them with their mental health. I hope the Minister will say something about how the roll-out can be sped up and those teams grown so that there is more coverage for each of our schools.
Of course, there is a big overlap between mental health provision and special educational needs and disability provision. Boys make up over 60% of those receiving special educational needs support and over 70% of those on education, health and care plans. Those receiving SEND support are more than twice as likely to be excluded as the average boy, and more than five times as likely to be excluded as the average girl. Too many children are being forced out of school due to a failure to provide the required support for them to learn.
I have heard time and again from parents and kinship carers who feel that they have been let down by the SEND system in this country and that they are having to try to educate their children with no support. That has very much driven up the number of children being home-schooled, so I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to assure parents and carers of children with SEND across the country that their rights will not be rolled back when the Government look to reform our broken SEND system. Families must be at the heart of these changes, so that all children can access the support they deserve. I urge the Minister to look at the five principles for SEND reform that the Liberal Democrats published yesterday.
Finally, seriously tackling the feeling of hopelessness among young boys means looking at the online world. We have seen from research that algorithms are feeding increasingly violent and misogynistic content towards boys. With 60% of children aged eight to 10 having a social media account, it is wrong that companies can profit from addictive and harmful algorithms. We need to start taking a health approach to online safety, with tighter regulation of the tech giants and by empowering and educating young people and the adults who care for them about the online world. Crucially, we need to provide alternative spaces and activities for young people, so that they are not always glued to a screen when they have spare time.
The Liberal Democrats want the digital age of consent raised, to end addictive algorithms and to stop companies trading on our children’s attention. I very much hope that the Government will not kowtow to Donald Trump and remove the digital services tax, but instead treble it, so that that money can be invested in improving our children’s wellbeing and mental health. I once again thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this important debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Department for Education
Judith Cummins Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am going to start with an immediate four-minute time limit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I want to try to get everybody in, so we will have an immediate three-minute time limit.