(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 636718 and 624185 relating to children and bereavement.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This is my first time opening a debate as a new member of the Petitions Committee; I am delighted to speak to the two incredibly important petitions. Before I begin, I want to thank the House of Commons staff for enabling me to engage proactively with the petitioners, charities, advocates, representatives and supporters involved in both petitions. I feel privileged to stand here today as an advocate for the campaigners who have worked tirelessly for years to get results on these vital matters. This debate takes place during National Grief Awareness week, which is run by the Good Grief Trust, who chose this year’s theme: shine a light. That is exactly what I hope to do today in this debate.
First, I would like to set out the two matters at hand before I make the case for each. Crucial in all of this is that both petitions go hand in hand in with the same diagnosis and cure, which I will describe. I will delve into it further towards the end of my speech. I want to start with the petition entitled, “Record the number of bereaved children to ensure they are supported”. That might not be something we would consider every day, but currently we do not know how many bereaved children there are in the UK right now. The petition argues:
“If we don’t know the true scale of childhood bereavement, the services that exist to help are unable to proactively offer the support that children and their families need to cope with their grief. Without support, unresolved grief in young people can lead to an increased risk of youth offending, family breakdown, underachievement in education and employment and long-term mental health conditions.”
I want to thank Winston’s Wish and its inspiring ambassador, Mark Lemon, for the work that they have done submitting the petition and campaigning for it over the years. One of the fundamental reasons why I am in favour of it is Mark’s own personal story, which I am deeply grateful to be able to share on his behalf today. At age 12, Mark experienced the horrific murder of his father. With nothing registered and no real support around at the time, Mark received no help to cope with that traumatic incident or adjust to the massive impact that the loss had on his life until his 20s. Mark is here today, and he argues that recording the number of children in the household when a death is registered could help thousands of bereaved children and ensure that services can better plan, reach out to families and offer much-needed support. Mark is working hard to make sure that no child faces the isolation he did after such devastation, which is hard for any of us to fathom even as adults.
Setting aside the emotional aspect of the argument, I support the practicalities of the proposal. From service delivery to charities, local councils and schools, how can anybody work to tackle the consequences of childhood bereavement if no one knows where it is occurring in the first place?
I concur exactly with everything the hon. Member has said. It is a cause close to my own heart. In fact, I have a private Member’s Bill on this very subject due to be considered in July. Does he agree with me that this is something the Government should look at and help to happen, because it should not need legislation?
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Obviously, there are things that can be done through law. There are things that are done through good practice and guidelines, and I am sure we will hear from my hon. Friend the Minister in due course as to what can be done. If it needs legislation I am sure she will consider that, but we should do all that we can to encourage the Government to take whatever steps they can to help achieve the aims of the petitions.
On the first petition about collecting data, a simple change would be to support registrars to collect the data when a death is registered while protecting the anonymity and data of the family. That seems achievable without being overly invasive. After all, it would simply be an option, and it would indicate where bodies need to target their support. Winston’s Wish, the child bereavement charity, has regular get-togethers with young people so they can share their stories of grief with one another. Imagine how that data could transform where it allocates its resources, time and effort. It could be transformational for our kids.
From speaking to colleagues across the House, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who brought a debate on this subject to Westminster Hall earlier this year, it is clear that such a move could attract cross-party consensus. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister what legislation would be needed to enact the change permitting registrars to collect data on the number of bereaved children at the point of registering the death. If enacted, what support and training could be given to registrars so they can direct families who register bereaved children towards charities and bodies that can help?
The previous Government essentially said, “We won’t do this, because it is not the done thing,” and pointed people towards the support that schools and charities can give. Let us make it the done thing, because it would help schools and charities to do their jobs in the first place.
The second, and equally important, petition argues that we should add content on death, dying and bereavement to the national curriculum. It states that, under compulsory relationships education, schools should be required to provide age-appropriate education to help children understand death as a part of life:
“Talking about death can be helpful for children and issues of bereavement should be compulsory learning for children in preparation for life as an adult. Children are taught how life begins through the national curriculum and similarly we should not hide from equipping children with the skills to comprehend death. Children must be provided with the skills to comprehend loss and to prepare for the emotions and feelings that accompany a bereavement which at some point, we all have to face.”
I commend the research, testimony and briefings from the childhood bereavement network and the National Children’s Bureau, which have compelled me, emotionally and logically, to support these changes. I also want to highlight the work of the petition creator, John Adams, past president of the National Association of Funeral Directors, whose membership includes more than 4,000 funeral homes. He has used his story of grief as a young child as a motivator to call for these changes, which will help all other children in need.
On that point, I want to give credit to my constituent, John Adams. He did not let the death of his mother, Maria, hold him back in life. He was determined to see change, and he should be championed for all the work he is doing.
I wholeheartedly agree, and I commend John and others who have used their experience to help other people. There is nothing better than a person’s own experience for reaching out and supporting people.
Every day, an average of 111 children in the UK lose a parent. After charities, schools, local authorities and family members and friends have stepped in, how many of those children fall through the net and have no one to talk to or cope with? Our job is to level the playing field. Not everyone has a fantastic teacher who goes the extra mile, working within parameters of the curriculum, which could allow the teaching of bereavement through links to other topics, such as the family. Not everyone attends a school that has a bereavement policy or a pastoral support team that identifies and supports bereaved children. Not everyone has access to a phenomenal organisation such as Winston’s Wish or Stand-by-me in my constituency of Stevenage—a local childhood bereavement service that launched a “Contact-me” bereavement programme, which offers a whole-school approach to supporting bereaved students. Stand-by-me now has children who have experienced bereavement as young ambassadors. For example, Evie received support from the charity and has helped three other children in her class with similar experiences. There is nothing like the peer-to-peer support of a person who helps somebody they know who feels the same way as them. I thank Evie and the many other children like her who support others in the same situation, but not everyone has a network of family and friends who can step up and find out how to get the right help.
Let us stop the postcode lottery and bring grief education into the school curriculum. That will guarantee that at least one effort is made with every child across the country to break the stigma of bereavement. It will foster healthy discussions about what has happened and what is to come, and make those affected feel that they have a network of support they can access safely.
I do not believe bereavement education would add a burden to already pressurised schools and staff, because as I have learned in the past few weeks, resources from all the organisations I have spoken with on the petition are ready to do the job. We must be proactive, not reactive. We should not take the risk that a single child in 10 years’ time will tell a story like Mark or John’s. I ask the Government, what is the latest guidance following a recent curriculum review? Can bereavement education be included if that is not already the case? The previous Government left the matter up for review, stating that it could be taught in school if schools wanted that. No more “could”; let us move to “should”, or even “must”.
I want to end where I started. The matters in the two petitions are inherently linked, one perfectly complementing the other. With a register for who needs support, alongside the guarantee of intervention in our schools, we will be making an active choice to see all the invisible bereaved children in the UK today. Let us turn isolation into embrace, and do whatever is possible to enshrine both petitions in law and practice as best as we can.
The motion is that we have considered the petitions before us, and I hope everyone will agree that we have considered them well. Let us hope that there will be beneficial progress as a result of today’s discussions. I once again thank the petitioners.
I add my thanks to everybody who has spoken in the debate. This issue clearly has resonance across the whole House and across parties, and we have learned a lot from the personal experiences of Members. We heard from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) about his own experience of child bereavement, from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) about the experience of a bereaved parent, and from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the experience of the friends of children losing their parents. They are all big personal experiences.
I was not going to mention my own personal experience, but hearing from others today reminded me of what happened 26 years ago, when I lost my father to throat cancer when I was 20. At the time, I had a younger brother in his teens and a mother who had to cope for the family. This debate made me think, “What if I had the support that many people have today, and what if that was there for everyone?”, so I am grateful to hon. Members for sharing their experiences. How many hundreds of thousands of experiences like those are out there?
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for sharing the experiences that MPs hear in their surgeries all the time. They were very harrowing, and we must take them as best we can, but we must learn from them and think about how we can join things up. As she said, the state, in all its forms, is a corporate parent.
I also thank the other Members who spoke. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), whose cross-party approach I appreciated.
I thank the Minister for having such an open mind on this issue and for confirming that the Government will take forward what we have heard today in both the cross-departmental working group and her own Department. I will monitor that work and will help the petitioners to do that too.
Finally, I thank the petitioners themselves. They have put this issue on the agenda, and we are all grateful to them for doing so. As Members of Parliament, we will do what we can to keep it there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 636718 and 624185 relating to children and bereavement.
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing the debate on SEND provision in the east of England. Accounts from hon. Members today show acutely that, although we aim to highlight our local situation, there are similarities in issues and themes in SEND provision both regionally and nationally.
For me, this subject has been the most spoken about since I was elected Member of Parliament for Stevenage, and for a good reason. I ran an online campaign in my constituency to encourage residents to tell me their SEND provision stories, an unfiltered account of the frontline reality. I used those accounts to raise awareness of issues faced by SEND students and families in a recent Westminster Hall debate on SEND provision in Hertfordshire. I have used subsequent opportunities in the Chamber to lobby Ministers to help address the situation.
Ultimately, our primary function as MPs is to elevate the voices of those who elected us to this place. As I did in the last SEND debate I participated in, I want to raise an account from the frontline, which I did not get the chance to highlight last time. A distraught mother told me:
“My son was permanently excluded whilst we were awaiting the outcome of his EHCP—which left me to look after a traumatised, out-of-school, six year old, organise a new school, fight for his EHCP, look after my daughter, work my busy job and prepare practically and mentally for a tribunal. With NHS waiting lists for a diagnosis sitting at two years, I eventually funded a diagnosis 10 months later. He was deemed suitable for specialist provision but no places were available.”
That family was left traumatised. Such blatant accounts tell a clear story: the diagnosis and EHCP processes are hard to navigate and too slow, and placement in a suitable school is a postcode lottery, where too many cases can easily fall through the net. The problem cannot be fixed by simply holding our local authorities’ feet to the fire. We have to recognise the position they have been put in over the last 14 years, with soaring demand, plummeting budgetary power and mass reductions in staff.
I want to thank the frontline staff, who work so hard in tough conditions, to get results for children who deserve an education just as much as their fellow pupils. Their lives and their futures matter.
I thank Jess Asato, whose constituency of Lowestoft neighbours mine, for securing this important debate.
The issue of SEND provision in the east is pertinent, particularly in my constituency of Great Yarmouth. However, I wish to put on the record my concern about the issue of over-diagnosis relating to mental disorders: the rush to label any energetic or active child with a condition is not helpful. That is not to downplay the impact on the many, many children who suffer from a range of challenging issues and needs, but there is a debate to be had about what actually constitutes a mental disorder and how many children are affected. In March 2021, the number of under-18s who had been seen by mental health services in the previous 12 months was 572,912, but in July 2024 the number was 797,238. Are children becoming unhappier or more mentally ill, or is there an issue with over-diagnosis?
Lockdown played a brutal role, stripping millions of young people of what they loved and forcing them in front of televisions and smartphones for months on end. For many, habits have not changed and will not change. Is it a surprise that so many young people are now suffering? I am a huge believer in the importance of physical activity in tackling mental health issues: getting children active; getting them outdoors and competitive; and developing social, emotional and physical skills. Sensible public investment is required to build pools, parks and pitches, to give children the platform they need to get physically active. I fully agree that for many children the necessary facilities are simply not there.
I commend a range of clubs in my constituency that are doing wonderful work for young children, many of which I have had the pleasure of visiting, such as Hopton Harriers Football Club and of course Great Yarmouth Town FC. Such activity providers should be encouraged and, more importantly, funded, so that children have the opportunity to get more active in their communities. Of course, physical activity is not suitable at all, but for many it can and will help.
I would like to directly question Labour Members here about SEND provision. What effect will the removal of VAT exemption on private schools have on access to proper support for SEND children in the east of England? That cruel move will force thousands of students into a state system already buckling under the pressure from uncontrolled mass immigration. Schools are literally crumbling away, yet your callous policy will punish hard-working families who simply want the best for their children. Unlike the NHS, the British private school system is genuinely the envy of the world. We should encourage and foster it, rather than punitively attacking such a British success story.
The hon. Member appears to be conflating another issue with what we are talking about today. We all already know that if someone has an EHCP, VAT will not be affected in that situation. Does he not accept that?
That is your subjective opinion—I accept that.
In my view, this policy is the politics of envy, pure and simple. This particularly distasteful tweet from the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, sums up the Labour party’s disdain for hard-working, aspirational parents. Our state schools—
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for securing this debate on such a vital issue for all our residents. For the last few weeks, I have been running an online campaign to encourage residents in my constituency to tell me their SEND provision stories. One constituent told me:
“Despite constant concerns raised and referrals, I was left undiagnosed, unmonitored and untreated for ASC1 and ADHD for over two decades. In retrospect, I can see that many of the difficult experiences I had throughout school could’ve been so different.”
A local councillor told me:
“My constituent has a 10-year-old son with significant cognitive delay. He was placed in a comprehensive school with no SEND support capacity whilst stuck on a 90 child waiting list for a place at a suitable SEN school.”
A mother told me:
“My son with special needs was excluded before we were able to complete his EHCP application, then sent to a school an hour and a half away as the nearest option with capacity to meet his needs. Unable to cope with the daily taxis, we were then refused funding for a transition into a new school. He has been left without formal education for 5 years. I’ve been unable to make any contact to get help for years.”
Those harrowing accounts tell a clear story: the diagnosis and EHCP process is hard to navigate and too slow. It is easy to see such cases as just another piece of complex casework, but they are much more than that. There is clearly a systemic problem in Hertfordshire, as the recent Ofsted and Care Quality Commission report found. Every case is about the future of a child who deserves an education, just as much as anyone else, and all children are impacted by a failure to provide SEND support to those who need it. I hope these remarks have underlined the importance of fixing the fundamental flaws in SEND services to secure a dignified future for all affected. We must do better.
I am hopeful that Hertfordshire county council can turn things around. I ask the Minister to consider a fairer funding settlement for our county, so as to help deliver the support our young people need.