Pride Month

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

First, I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s remarks about the early acts of Reform councils. I also say to him that the NHS is absolutely for all of us, including the LGBT+ community, and I will make sure that Health Ministers have heard his comments.

Hate crime against the LGBT+ community is still far too prevalent. I spoke with those at the LGBT+ domestic violence charity Galop this week, and they have had a 27% increase in hate crime calls in the past year. They told me that hate is becoming more normalised, and perpetrators are becoming more emboldened to target LGBT+ people, whether we are talking about stranger abuse on the streets or physical violence. I am proud that this Government have strengthened protections for LGBT+ people through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, ensuring that our community is properly protected from targeted abuse and violence. We have equalised the law, so that hate crime committed on the basis of sexuality or gender identity is treated the same as racially or religiously motivated hostility. The principle is straight- forward: nobody should live with the fear that their identity makes them a target. This was a commitment in the manifesto on which I was proud to stand for election, and I am delighted that we have delivered it.

I will also be proud to deliver on another manifesto commitment, which is a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Let us be clear about what conversion practices are. They are a very specific, insidious form of abuse that attempts to change who somebody is. LGBT people are told that who they are is wrong, that it is shameful, and that it can and should be changed. This is not about banning legitimate therapy, explorative conversations or prayer. All people in this country deserve to have access to open conversations about their identity, and this Government are not seeking to change that. What we are seeking to ban is abuse, plain and simple. These abhorrent practices are coercive, degrading and harmful, and they have caused profound trauma to LGBT+ people for decades. I hope Members across the House agree with me that these practices have no place in modern Britain, and will support our work to ban them once and for all.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate the point the Minister is making, but the Government have long spoken about a Bill to ban conversion therapy. In fact, they have been talking about bringing forward draft legislation for nearly two years. Can the Minister give us a concrete timeline? Will we see the draft legislation in 2026, or in the next year, or the year after that?

[Olivia Bailey]

I hope the hon. Member has gathered from my remarks that I am absolutely focusing on this very important ban with speed and determination.

Before I conclude, I want to recognise that while the Government have an important role to play in protecting LGBT+ rights, lasting change is delivered every day by people and organisations working in communities across our country, and I am sure that we will hear lots of examples of that in the debate. I have had the privilege of meeting remarkable organisations, including Stonewall, Galop, the LGBT Foundation, the LGBT Consortium and the Terrence Higgins Trust, among many others. These organisations help people through some of the most difficult moments in their lives, challenge injustice and build stronger communities. We owe them our gratitude and we have a responsibility to support their work.

That is why this Government are taking Pride Month so seriously, being loud and proud about our commitment to the LGBT community. Throughout this month, Departments across Government will be hosting events and activities that celebrate LGBT+ communities and highlighting the issues they face. From the Ministry of Justice engaging with LGBT legal professionals to the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs exploring the experiences of LGBT+ people in rural communities, colleagues across Government are playing their part.

Our commitment to Pride is not confined to a single month. We will stand with the LGBT+ community year-round, because that is what this Labour Government stand for: hope and unity over division and hate. It is a simple principle that I hope Members across this House can agree on: every person in this country should be able to live freely, safely and with dignity, regardless of who they are or who they love. That is the principle we reaffirm today and that is the commitment this Government will continue to defend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am glad to have the chance to speak in the debate, although I echo the words of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen): these things are always on a Thursday. As the sole woman in the SNP, and as the party’s women and equalities spokesperson, I find myself here on Thursdays way more often than my colleagues. It would be nice if we moved these debates around a little, and had them on a Monday occasionally.

I cannot help but agree with every word that the hon. Member for Luton North said. I will try really hard not to be party political, and not to—this is the bit that I will find most difficult—look backwards. Instead, I will try to look forward. I will look for what we need to do. I will point out where things are today and how we can improve them, rather than looking at what was done in the past, but first, I recognise that although Pride is about celebration, it is also about being angry. We should be angry about the injustices. We can celebrate, party, dance, sing and use rainbow colours if we wish to, but we must remember that we are always fighting against those injustices, and trying to improve the world and our small part of it, so that everyone can live their truth and be who they are, including publicly.

There are a number of things that I would like to see happen, changes that need to be made and things that I would like the Government to consider. I asked the Minister a question about the conversion therapy ban. I appreciate, and I believe in, her commitment to that— I have no reason to doubt it. It just rankles a little that when we were talking about the Equality Act judgment, Ministers would say, at the Dispatch Box, “We do support trans people, because we are delivering a fully trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban.” They have been saying that for two years. The trans community feels so hurt and alone as it is, so that rings hollow. Anything that the Minister can do to make sure that the ban happens soon, so that we can at least protect the trans community in one way, would be hugely appreciated.

I turn to the EHRC guidance, how it will work and the impact it will have on people’s lives. An MP should be allowed to choose to tell people, from the Dispatch Box or elsewhere in this Chamber, that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer. They should be allowed not to choose to do that. The atmosphere and ethos should allow people to choose whether to do that or not. It should be their right to say that out loud or not. In the guidance, we are saying that trans people no longer have that right. We are saying that no trans person who is accessing a service will be allowed to remain quiet about their gender reassignment status; they will have to state what their biological sex is, according to the Equality Act. If they are booked into the NHS—taken into hospital, or into a mental health setting and sectioned—they will have to say to the doctor and the medical staff, “I was assigned female at birth.” They will have to make that clear; their right to privacy is gone. If someone who went to hospital had to say, “I’m bisexual” or “I’m gay” before they were assigned to a ward, that would be completely unacceptable, but we think it is okay for trans people to have to say that, even if it is not medically relevant. We think it is okay for trans people to have to say that before they can go to a swimming pool and into the changing rooms. We are telling people that they must explain what their biological sex is before they can access services.

This is not proportionate guidance. It is not fair to take away that private-life right, which every one of us should have. We should be able to choose what we tell people about our gender identity, biological sex and sexuality. What we say about those should be up to us. For example, if somebody is living in a religious community that has only ever known them as a woman, they will now have to say, “I’m sorry—I can’t use those toilets. I’m not allowed to use them,” or else—I don’t know; I do not know what sanctions result from that. But the guidance does not work.

I appreciate the issue of clarity in the law, which people have talked about. The prayer against the statutory instrument is praying against the guidance. However unhappy some of us are with the judgment, the early-day motion states that the guidance does not work, and that the statutory instrument should not be approved; it is not about overturning the Supreme Court judgment, no matter how many people would like to do that, or about changing the Equality Act. It is specifically about the guidance being inappropriate. I have put my name to the motion because I do not think that the guidance works, or understand how it will work. Trans people living across these islands should have the right to privacy and should not have to disclose their status to anybody who asks.

I will talk about a few things that are probably less serious, but still important. Fertility issues in relation to gay and lesbian couples have been raised with me on many occasions. Will the Minister and the team look into the number of rounds of in vitro fertilisation treatment that are provided to people, and whether that involves discrimination on the basis of sexuality? Can any improvements be made to those systems to ensure that, no matter the sexuality of a couple or an individual, there is a level playing field and people are provided equal access to services? As was said, what children need is a loving family; it should not matter what gender the parents are when they are going for fertility treatment. Anything the Minister can do on that would be helpful.

Let me turn to the social media ban. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), spoke about the loneliness that there can be in being the only gay in the village, somebody whose voice is not heard, or somebody who cannot live their truth in their family. We need to be careful, in any decisions taken around social media bans, not to remove young people from communities they may have found, which might be the only places where they can live their truth, where they are supported and where they can see that there are other people like them. We need to ensure that there are impact assessments, so that we are not committing these young people, who already feel on the outside of things and that they are not accepted, to further isolation. I am not saying that definitely will happen; I am saying that the Government need to assess and consider these things when they take any decisions around social media bans.

Let me also touch on neurodiversity, intersectionality and issues faced by people who fit into numerous categories of minority. It bothers me hugely that this is a prevalent thought for too many people: “You’re not really trans; you’re just autistic.” It is perfectly possible to be autistic and trans. It is perfectly possible to be one and not the other, or both. Too many people are told, or have suggested to them, “You’re just neurodiverse; don’t worry—you’re not really trans.” That is not listening to people and understanding their truth; it is not accepting them for who they are. People grow and change. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), talked about young people being able to be themselves and accepted as themselves. Some of those young people will change as they go along their path and find the right fit for them. Some of them will be non-binary for a bit, and then realise that they are actually not non-binary at all. That is okay, and it should be okay. We all try things on. I dressed as a goth for a while as a kid; I do not recommend it—I am not nearly pale enough to dress as a goth, but I thought it was a good idea for a wee while. Until I found out who I was, what fitted and how I wanted to express myself, it was okay to try all sorts of things. We should accept young people as they do that, and support them on that journey, as they discover who they are.

I want to raise a concern about school guidance. If a young person at school discloses to their teacher that they are a lesbian or bisexual, there is no automatic feeling that “We had better go and tell their parents, because this is really dangerous and scary.” Some of the guidance for schools states that, if a young person discloses that they are trans, their parents must be told. Now, it is not always safe for their parents to be told. It is concerning if teachers feel that they have to treat trans children differently and have a conversation with parents about that. Children need to feel that they can live their truth and speak to trusted adults about that, without fear that it will be passed on. I do not understand how we can justify treating this issue differently, and how we can say this is somehow dangerous and scary. The more that we treat it differently, and suggest that it is dangerous and scary, the more hatred and lack of understanding there will be for an already marginalised minority group.

I want the Government, and all Governments, to think carefully when they are making decisions or putting out guidance about whether it stigmatises and minoritises an already attacked community—a community that is already finding things difficult. I appreciate the Government talking about DEFRA, for example, looking at the impact of growing up gay in rural communities—I cannot exactly remember the phrase. I appreciate that these things are being done much more throughout Government than they perhaps were. Women and Equalities Ministers are not the only people who ever think about the fact that gay people exist. I am glad that other Departments are doing that, but we need to do more of it, particularly when it comes to trans people and destigmatising and not minoritising individuals.

My last point on trans people relates to puberty blockers. There still needs to be more thought about the best way forward. We are minoritising and stigmatising a community and saying to people that their reality and truth are not the reality and truth, that they are not allowed to believe that and that they are not allowed to be trans until they are 18. People are allowed to be gay before they are 18, but they are allowed to be trans only once they are 18. That is not what somebody has said from the Dispatch Box, but that is what it feels like to so many members of the community, and I would love the Government to consider that.

Let me finish on a happier note. There is a charity in Aberdeen called Four Pillars. I remember more than 10 years ago sitting with Deejay, one of the team who runs the charity, and Deejay saying, “I have this dream of having a café, a drop-in place where people can go and be themselves and feel comfortable.” That café has now been open for a number of years. At the time, both of us laughed because we thought, “That’s never going to happen. We are never going to have that in the city centre of Aberdeen,” but we now have that safe space where people can be themselves. The café does all sorts of cool, fun things, such as dungeons and dragons nights and craft nights. It is a place where people can be themselves and are accepted no matter what that looks like. We need more of that acceptance. We need to ensure that gender non-conformity, for example, is more accepted, that we are not giving people a licence to challenge women with short hair. Why should men not wear skirts? Why should boys not wear pink? That is stuff we have been fighting against for so long, and the guidance we have now risks dragging us backwards.

This is my very last point—I promise, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard about how lesbians are sometimes left out of this conversation and we have heard an awful lot about trans people, because of the risks and worries for the trans community, but there is a B in LGBT, too. It does not matter who someone is married to, it does not define their sexuality. If a woman is married to a man, that does not mean she is heterosexual. We can listen to people and accept that their truth may not be as stereotypical as it looks from the outside, and we should remember when we are talking about Pride and LGBT history that there is a B in LGBT, too.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Kirsty Blackman.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Only one clause in this legislation applied to Scotland in advance of it returning from the Lords. Lords amendment 38 contains a reserved power that would apply across the whole UK the changes that are being suggested to the Online Safety Act. I want to focus specifically on those changes.

Comments have been made about social media, but it is not exclusively social media where there are dangers to children online. It is not exclusively user-to-user services where there are dangers to children online. There are some games that can be downloaded that do not have user-to-user services but are highly addictive, and those would not be covered by the Conservative or Liberal Dem proposals because they are games without user-to-user services.

There are massive risks online for young people, but I do not want us to absolve companies of the responsibility of dealing with that. There is this sudden feeling that dealing with this issue is dramatically urgent, but people have been sending unsolicited nude pics online for more than 30 years. It has been happening for a significant length of time. It is urgent that action is taken, but it does not have to be taken today; it has to be taken correctly and in a way that works, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) just said.

We need to ensure that, whatever we do, we have a clear aim in mind. What is the intention? Are we trying to protect children online, or are we trying to ban children from social media? Are we trying to ensure that young people are not exposed to people who are looking to groom them, to access them, or to convince them of something? Are we trying to protect them from that, or from obsessively looking at algorithms and videos on TikTok? Maybe we are trying to do both, but we need to be clear about what the aims are.

There is no point in banning social media if we do not know why we are banning it, and if we still allow access to Roblox and many other places where there is harm. If we ban YouTube, what happens if a kid wanders into a room and watches YouTube that is playing on the TV via the PlayStation? Who is responsible for that? How do we sort this—how do we ensure that it works?

I am clear that whatever happens, it needs to work. We must not just listen to the big tech companies. We need to do as the Minister has suggested: listen to parents and experts to understand exactly how children consume the internet. We need to know where and how these individuals who are accessing children for nefarious purposes are doing it, because it is not only through social media or the platforms that are being defined by some people as social media.

I am clear that this needs to work. Therefore, I am supportive of the Government undertaking a consultation. I have spoken to DSIT officials and as many people as I possibly can about this. I am very glad about some of the changes that the Government are bringing forward—for example, to ensure that livestreaming cannot be accessed by young people. I have been pushing for that for a significant number of years, and I am glad that we have got to that place, but there are far wider issues with certain functionalities online that need to be tackled and that will not be covered by a blanket ban on social media.

We cannot let the companies continue to get away with this. We cannot let them continue to have horrific and harmful illegal content, without cracking down on it and making sure that they are held accountable for the behaviour on their platforms. We cannot just say, “We’ll ban under-16s from social media and absolve ourselves and the companies of responsibility.” We need to take real action that will really protect our children. Please, everyone, respond to the consultation.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 105. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on allergy, a lifelong allergy sufferer, a former teacher and the parent of a lifelong allergy sufferer, I am painfully aware of the inconsistencies of allergy care, and the anxiety and harm that it causes.

Baroness Morgan of Cotes’ amendment aimed to introduce new requirements based on learning, following the tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and others. While I believe that there is much more that can be done to improve the lives of allergy sufferers, I am pleased that the creation of new statutory advice and the implementation of Benedict’s law will vastly improve the situation for children with allergies. All schools will now be required to stock allergy devices, have a dedicated allergy policy and ensure that teachers are trained, meaning that lifesaving treatments for allergies will no longer be hidden in tupperware boxes at the back of dusty cupboards. It means that no parents will ever receive a phone call like I did, when I was asked whether my child, in the school’s care, needed to use their auto-injector, knowing full well that if the answer was yes, it could have already been too late.

I am proud that the Government are putting allergies at the heart of proactive, preventive school planning. Recent approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency means that more adrenalin devices are available, including stable, long-lasting and less-traumatic adrenalin nasal sprays. I would appreciate it if the Minister can confirm that nasal sprays and other adrenalin devices will be available in schools following the new statutory advice. Children are more likely to have a reaction in school than anywhere else: 80% of food allergy reactions happen in schools, including a quarter for the first time. That is why it is essential that schools have devices available, even before diagnosis occurs.

I want to celebrate the campaigning of Baroness Morgan of Cotes and the incredible work of Helen Blythe. The implementation of Benedict’s law in full will reduce the risk to our children. It will ensure that every child starts the school day safe, and will reduce the fear that they will not leave it that way, even if they have allergies.

Free School Meals

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people in her constituency. She is absolutely right to set out the differences in the cost of living that this policy will make for parents; as she suggests, it will also have real benefits in behaviour, attendance and attainment, as I set out in my statement.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Minister has today made a big thing about every family in every corner of our country, and he has talked about how widespread this change will be. A small number of additional people in England will be able to get additional free school meals. I am glad that the Government have extended eligibility, but it does not have the geographical reach that he is trying to make out. Were he to remove the two-child benefit cap, that would have an effect in every part of these islands, reducing poverty in every constituency. Why is this issue being kicked into the long grass? He is making an announcement on free school meals, but the Government are refusing to make announcements on the child poverty strategy that was promised in the spring.

[Stephen Morgan]

Wasn’t that a nice try, Madam Deputy Speaker? Let us be clear: we are taking urgent action in the light of the scar of poverty on our society. We have the spending review next week, and the child poverty strategy will conclude in due course.

[Kirsty Blackman]

When?

[Stephen Morgan]

If the hon. Lady had listened carefully to my statement, she would know that I said we will be announcing further details on the strategy later this year.

Gender Self-identification

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I will focus on the text of the petition by talking specifically about what a gender recognition certificate is and is not needed for. A person does not need a gender recognition certificate to update their driving licence, passport, medical records, employment records or bank account, and they do not need one to go into a toilet or changing room—nor do they need a birth certificate to go into a toilet or changing room, I hasten to add.

The point of a gender recognition certificate is to allow someone to update their birth or adoption certificate. That allows them the human right of privacy. A gender recognition certificate allows someone to get married or form a civil partnership in their affirmed gender. Again, it allows them that privacy; it allows them and their partner to have the correct genders on their marriage or civil partnership agreement. A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to update their marriage or civil partnership certificate.

A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to have their affirmed gender on their death certificate. Imagine if your partner, father, mother or child died and they had to have the wrong gender on their death certificate. Imagine how that would compound the misery you are already feeling.

Those are the things that a gender recognition certificate allows someone to do. It might also change their pension entitlements, which is really important for people who are not getting the correct pension entitlements, particularly if their partner dies.

People can apply to have a gender recognition certificate even if they have not had any surgery or treatment. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned the issues with gender-affirming care and gender identity clinics, and the extremely long waiting times even for initial appointments. Imagine if people did not have to have a gender dysphoria diagnosis to apply for a gender recognition certificate; they would not even need to see the gender identity clinic should they not wish to.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that other jurisdictions have implemented the self-declaration of legal gender without any detriment, and without any of the debates we have had in this country even without those reforms? For instance, Ireland has had an Act providing for the self-declaration of legal gender for 10 years. Is it not time that we moved with those other jurisdictions?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said, there is still a legal requirement not to lie, with powers to punish people who lie when applying for a gender recognition certificate.

Across these islands, very few medical practitioners are competent, trained and working in this area. If we freed up some of their clinical time, the people who need gender-affirming surgery and treatment would get it far more quickly. The queue would shorten because those seeking a gender recognition certificate would not need a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

The Government could also choose to put other rules in place, and there are already other rules for getting a gender recognition certificate. The petition focuses on the gender dysphoria diagnosis, but it does not focus on the fact that people have to provide two years’ worth of evidence. The Government could still require that people provide evidence for every three-month period in at least the previous two years showing them using the title of Mr, Mrs or Ms, showing them using their new name, and proving that they have been living in that gender. The Government could still require all that while taking out the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, which would make things so much better for people.

As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds and a number of other hon. Members have said, what has happened around the Supreme Court ruling has made things even more complicated and confusing for people—it has not provided clarity. We are now in a weird limbo situation where huge numbers of pubs, restaurants and shops, which are just trying to do their best, do not know what they have to do. They have the interim guidance, which is frankly not very clear, the Court ruling and the Equality Act to look at, but they do not know what toilets they should be providing.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I have heard the argument that the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of “sex” within the confines of the Equality Act 2010—I have inquired further into this as a member of the Justice Committee—and it is now for the Government to legislate further to protect trans people.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading is that the Supreme Court tried to work out what was in the minds of the politicians who passed the Equality Act in 2010. That is a difficult thing to do, because I cannot say what is in my mind right now, never mind 15 years ago. The Supreme Court tried to interpret that, and it came down on the side of saying that the politicians were talking about biological sex when it comes to single-sex spaces, for example. Actually, the Equality Act mainly focuses on things like discrimination rather than single-sex spaces, which are a tangential side mention in the Act.

My understanding is that someone can now only be discriminated against on the basis of biological sex or on the basis of their transgender identity, so not their transgender gender but their identity as a transgender person. That removes a huge amount of protection for transgender people. I am massively concerned, and I think the only way we will get clarity is if the Government step up and make a change to the Equality Act.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Equality Act was well written to deal with intersectional issues when they arise, that the guidance around it was very clear, and that this Supreme Court ruling has muddied that. As she says, the Government may need to step in to resolve this.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree, and the court ruling made it clear that the Scottish Government had acted in line with the EHRC’s guidance, but that it was the guidance that was wrong, because it should have been done on the basis of biological sex, not gender.

I am aware that I am pushing up against the time limit, but lastly, I am concerned about the direction of travel with the EHRC. It would be sensible to have an independent body look at making these decisions. Given the EHRC’s current positioning and the comments it has made—and given that, a few weeks ago, I was at a celebration of 15 years of the Equality Act and a number of people from LGB Alliance and Sex Matters were invited to that celebration, but there was only one transgender person in the room—I am concerned that the EHRC is not able to be an unbiased arbiter of the law on this issue.

Actually, I think the EHRC has an impossible job right now, because we cannot interpret the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. It does not make sense unless we tell everyone that they must have three toilets—if we are defining all toilets as single-sex spaces, and if businesses continue to be required to have single-sex toilets. The easiest way to solve this would be to say that every business should have unisex toilets for everybody, because then everyone could access every toilet.

However, I do not think we want to get to that position, so the Government have only two options. They can either talk to the EHRC and ensure that it is being completely unbiased, or they can change the Equality Act so that its meaning is totally clear, including on the definition of sex. That way, it would be clear that we are actually trying to protect human rights, particularly the right to privacy and the right of trans people to die a dignified death in their affirmed gender, if that is the phrase we want to use. I think we are failing right now, and changes need to be made to protect our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

We talk a lot about the needs of trans women but very little about the needs of trans men. I am deeply concerned about the impact on trans men who might be forced to go into women’s toilets. Many of them do an amazing job of masking and appearing to be men. I am sure that most of us know people but have no idea they are trans men, because so many have fantastic facial hair—more so than some men I know—and incredible muscles and tattoos. Imagine being a trans man who is told that they have to go to a women’s refuge. Imagine being the women in that refuge when a trans man comes in and says, “I have to be here because I’m still treated as a woman.” That is just offensive.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If a trans person has to out themselves every time they go to the toilet, does the hon. Member believe, like me, that that fundamentally conflicts with the right to privacy under the European convention on human rights?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am shocked daily by the indignity that we are imposing and the impact on the human rights of people who are trans.

Let me share some just some of the words used by trans people about the current gender recognition system: “traumatic”, “intrusive” and “over-medicated”. I am pleased that one of our Liberal Democrat Members in the other place is looking at how we can remove the need for a spouse to consent. How can it be compliant with the human rights of a trans person if their spouse has to consent to their getting a gender recognition certificate?

The recent Supreme Court ruling has made life as a trans person so difficult, and calls into question the value of a gender recognition certificate. If trans people who have undertaken all that is required to achieve that status are still to be treated as though they remain in the sex that they were assigned at birth, what is the point of a gender recognition certificate? Self-ID seems to be the only viable alternative. If self-ID is not to be progressed, what assurance can the Minister give our trans constituents that a gender recognition certificate will become easier and quicker to attain? If a trans person has gone through many years of distress, treatment, cost and trauma, they deserve to be honoured and respected, and their legally acquired gender should be recognised.

I recently recruited a member of staff, who unfortunately did not stay with me very long because they found the whole process quite traumatic. The day before they were due to start, they emailed me to tell me that they thought I needed to know that they were trans. I was so upset that they felt the need to do that. What sort of world are we in when someone has to share that private information with me, as their employer, and then is so traumatised by it that they decide they cannot work in the role after all? I felt absolutely sickened. The Good Law Project recently stated that

“given the current hostile direction of travel in the UK…we do not think it is without risk to be on a State list of trans people.”

Let me go back to something the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said about death. I cannot imagine anything more awful than a parent losing a child, particularly in a violent death or a death by suicide, which we have seen in recent years, or losing somebody who has lived their life for many years in their acquired gender, and then not to be able to lay the person they love to rest in the gender in which they lived. There is no greater indignity than that. I beg the Minister: if we do nothing else, let us change it so that people do not need a gender recognition certificate for their death certificate. That is absolutely inhumane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I think that it is a matter of fact that biological sex is crucial when it comes to correct service delivery and approach. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but when it comes to the understanding of treatment, it is important for there to be a distinction. But I understand the point.

Consider single-sex spaces such as refuges and NHS provision—screening programmes, for example: the protection and privacy of people, including women and girls, is paramount. However, as the hon. Lady just said, that must be balanced by the needs of others, so third spaces and understanding are also important. As I have already said, practicality is important. As many Members have said, this is not a zero-sum game for anybody, whether that is women and girls, and their safe spaces. As we have also heard, there must be suitable spaces for disabled people. This issue is about rounded equality for all. I truly believe that is vital.

We know that the Labour Government have not always necessarily agreed with the judgment in the recent case. Of course, Scottish Labour backed the SNP’s self-ID plans in Holyrood. Those were challenged in the Supreme Court and shown to be incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.

As we have heard again today, some people still have strong views about self-ID, which I recognise. However, for those concerned about the gender recognition certificate process, I highlight that that had already been reformed following feedback, which was rightly listened to. The then Government agreed with the GRC process, because it was hoped that it would create a balance between significant checks and balances within the system. But as we have heard today, different people take different stances.

In light of the ongoing debate and the Supreme Court judgment, it is now for this Government to find a way to clarify how they intend to implement their manifesto commitment to modernise and simplify the GRC process without compromising the rights of women and girls. Those buzzwords signify an intent to change, but what people living this right now want to know is the detail. Hopefully, the Minister will today start to clarify matters or begin to set a timetable for proposals to be scrutinised by the House, the public and all the different voices in this debate. That is crucial, because there is public concern that the Government may be introducing self-ID by the back door—not deliberately, but perhaps through processes that some may see as careless and others may see as suitable.

I address a specific point. It is a concern that Government Ministers have admitted that the Passport Office does not accurately record sex. A passport is one of the most recognised and commonly used Government issued IDs with a sex marker. Can the Minister say why the Government have not sought to remedy the situation? It clearly leaves a potential route for self-ID, creating uncertainty for service providers trying to comply with the law under the Equality Act. Today, we are talking about clarity; all concerned need clarity.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The shadow Minister is making the case that biological sex is incredibly important for things such as medical procedures—absolutely. However, I am not sure how she thinks that the marker on someone’s passport has any relationship with that. If, as has been argued, biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed, surely it does not matter what someone’s passport, driving licence or even birth certificate says? There is, apparently, some magical way of ascertaining people’s biological sex that nobody has yet told me about, unless it is a DNA test. Why does biological sex matter on a passport if, as a number of people have said, it is immutable and cannot be changed anyway?

[Mims Davies]

The previous Government commissioned Professor Alice Sullivan to ensure that the collection of data on sex and gender was consistent across Government. As I was saying, it would be good to know whether the Government will set out a timeline for implementing fully the recommendations from the Sullivan review. I understand the point made by the hon. Lady and other Members, but it is important for people to understand data collection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Some of this depends on the EHRC’s work and the time it takes to respond to the consultation; I know that we all want it to do so effectively. It is a matter on which I am sure the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, who is unable to be here today, will update the House in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West will understand that on one hand, we are saying it needs to be longer, and on the other hand we want clarity. What is important is that it is a consultation in which all voices can be heard. I think he will appreciate the assurance that the updated code will be laid in Parliament and will be there for scrutiny and consideration by both Houses. That will be an important part of the process.

[Kirsty Blackman]

When the Minister encourages the hon. Member for Llanelli to update us on the timelines, will she encourage her to update us with information on what the scrutiny process will be? I might have missed it, but I do not know whether it is subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure. If a statement could be made to the House explaining both those things, that would be helpful for all of us.

[Seema Malhotra]

That is an important consideration, and I will raise it with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Laws remain in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment, as the Supreme Court pointed out. It is important to state that protections for gender reassignment under the Equality Act have not been affected.

The ruling does not impact how a GRC is issued to change a person’s legal sex for certain purposes, nor does the ruling change its significance. There has been considerable debate on this, so I will make some comments on it, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that this is an ongoing debate. However, as we have heard in this debate, it is important to recognise that trans people deserve the right to get married, to have dignity in death, to access pensions and to live their lives in the same way as anyone else.

We have said that we will look at gender recognition reform. Our immediate priority, as laid out in the King’s Speech, is to make sure that we have a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, to strengthen hate crime protections for trans people, and to improve healthcare for trans people. It is also important to recognise that discussions continue with trans organisations and the trans community. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli will continue to have those discussions.

Any process that allows people to change something as fundamental as their legal sex must have appropriate and proportionate checks and balances. I have heard the different views today, but it is important for me to say—I do not believe this is new information—that the Government do not support self-identification because, as we set out in our manifesto, we believe in protecting the robustness of the process and its legitimate application. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is important in this process.

We all recognise the challenges in accessing NHS services, and it is important to say that the Government are committed to ensuring that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need when accessing NHS services. We are all aware of the delays, which have been happening for far too long. NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12, but in the light of the Cass report’s recommendations, NHS England also launched an in-depth review of adult services led by Dr David Levy in August 2024. The review will assess not only the quality, effectiveness, safety and patient experience of each service, but their stability and whether the existing model is still appropriate for the patients they care for.

I can also confirm that, as part of our agenda supporting LGBT+ people, the Government will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are clear that conversion practices are abuse. They do not work, and they can and do inflict deep and lasting harm on victims. The continuation of such acts in our society—a society largely accepting of LGBT+ people—must be challenged. The previous Government failed to act, but this Government will not fail.

That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to publish draft legislation for a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are working hard to draft measures that offer protection from these harmful practices, while also respecting the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am looking for an update on the timeline for the conversion practices ban and on what the scrutiny might look like. I understand that it is being published in draft, which is very much appreciated—the Online Safety Act 2023 really benefited from being published in draft—but what scrutiny will happen, and what is the timeline for the initial publication of the draft?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member may not be surprised to hear me say—indeed, I pre-empted her question—that there is not much I can update her on, other than to say that it is a priority for the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. When it is possible to update the House, she will very much want to do that. It is a priority and she is continuing to work on it.

I briefly mentioned Dr Levy’s review of adult gender services in NHS England. We want to ensure that all trans people can get the high-quality care they deserve, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referred to that, too. Also, we remain committed to implementing the recommendations set out in the Cass report, working with NHS England as it continues to improve children’s and young people’s gender services, and ensuring that those services provide the right healthcare, safeguarding and support for children and young people. That means making sure that they are based on the best available evidence and expert clinical opinion.

To briefly refer to the Supreme Court judgment again, I recognise that recent years have seen an increasing focus on the definition of sex in the Equality Act and access to single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court has given its judgment on that point, and the Government have been consistently clear that single-sex spaces must be protected, but we also know that trans people must be protected, and their safety and wellbeing is a matter for all of us. It is the role of the Government and Parliament to protect all members of society, and I hope that with the processes we have, we can now work better together to do just that.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Rainbow Map, and they were right to do so. We were ranked in first place in 2015 but went down to 22nd place this year, and that is a matter of concern. The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad, and we proudly uphold a clear, robust and expansive legal and legislative framework. We are working to advance the rights afforded to LGBT+ people, including, as we have spoken about, by bringing forward legislation in relation to conversion practices and strengthening protections against hate crime. We recognise that there is always more to do.

As we look forward to the future, the Government’s mission remains constant: to create a fairer, more inclusive society. That entails listening actively rather than imposing viewpoints, and it requires people to stand up for those who are marginalised even when those actions prove politically difficult. This debate has been an important contribution to that. More importantly, it involves remembering the core principle—that equality is not a zero-sum game; it elevates us all. We take pride in our achievements and our values, and we will not let complacency or the intent for division take root. Our commitment is to continue listening, learning and fighting for a society where everyone, regardless of their identity or who they love, can live with safety, dignity and hope.

Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 General Committees

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. He rightly points out that, during covid, we reduced the burden on construction companies to help them get through the pandemic, and the order is a return to normal. However, it is only one part of the interventions we are making to create the next generation of people working in construction. I am pleased to say that apprenticeship construction starts are doing well and are above their pre-pandemic level. We are introducing new T-levels in construction and we see a real appetite for the skills bootcamps that the Government have brought in. Those short, intensive courses, which help people skill up over 12 to 18 weeks, with a guaranteed job interview at the end, are popular with potential employees, employers and, I am pleased to say, the Treasury.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On the point the Minister just made, if this order is just bringing us back to pre-pandemic levels, it is not doing anything to fix the immigration situation we have because of Brexit. I know there is a major problem for bricklayers, for example. Will this just get us back to pre-pandemic levels, rather than making up for that shortfall that we see as a result of Brexit and this Government’s immigration policies?

[Alex Burghart]

As the hon. Lady will have heard me say to the hon. Member for Chesterfield, this is just one of the things we are doing. Our bootcamps are a new innovation that offer people of all ages a rapid route into employment. The construction route was very popular. It is important that the hon. Lady sees this in the round. She raises Brexit, but in my seven months in this job I have had the great pleasure of talking to further education colleges around England, and many principals have told me that there is new enthusiasm from employers to look at skills training in their areas, which did not exist before we left the EU. Lots of companies used to advertise internationally for skills as their first port of call, and people came in. They did not have to invest in training in their own areas. I am pleased to say that that is changing for the better for young people in England.

The work of the CITB will support strategic initiatives to help maintain vital skills in the industry and create a pipeline of skilled workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.

The Construction Industry Training Board has been instrumental in training the construction industry workforce since it was established in the wake of the Industrial Training Act 1964. The main reason for its creation was to address concerns about UK skills shortages at the time—an issue that seems more pressing than ever.

As Members may well be aware, since the CITB’s creation, the primary focus of the board has been to invest the money that it receives from the CITB levy in training and upskilling both the existing workforce and new entrants into the industry. It is essential, for both the construction industry and the wider UK economy, that Britain is able to attract the best new talent through the promotion of construction as an exciting and rewarding career.

I agree entirely with what the Minister said about the crucial importance of the construction industry; the fact that one of the biggest barriers to growth for the UK economy, and the construction industry in particular, is access to skilled labour; and the creation of an environment where young people feel that construction is a career that they can move into. Anyone who has sought to get any kind of building work done will know how difficult it is to attract a reliable, skilled workforce that is available, even for basic home improvements. That is even more the case within house building and other aspects of the construction sector, so this is a matter of supreme importance.

The CITB has been at the forefront of the implementation of T-levels for the construction sector, and of new frameworks for apprentices in the industry. I had the great privilege to visit both the HomeServe academy in Birmingham and the Steve Willis academy in Burgess Hill to see how apprentices in the sector are progressing and the wide range of opportunities open to those starting out in the industry. While there are a huge number of opportunities in the industry, there are still far too few people being giving opportunities to move into the sector, with HomeServe estimating that as many as 30,000 too few apprentices are coming through every year to keep pace with the growth opportunities and the retirements in what is an ageing workforce.

With the industry facing the twin challenges of an ageing workforce and the decline in migrant labour following Britain’s departure from the European Union, the role of the CITB—to make it easy for levy-paying firms to get funding for innovation and skills development —has never been more important. It has also never been more important for the Government to take a strategic view on supporting an industry that is largely based on subcontracted workers, and to recognise why we continue to have a huge skills shortage within the sector.

The Minister said a few moments ago that he has been speaking to further education colleges that have experienced many new employers getting involved in training, where previously they might have relied on migrant labour. That is great to hear. As he and the Committee will be aware, the Labour party was against the idea of Britain leaving the European Union, but is committed to making Brexit work in the best way that it can. One of the clear opportunities that exist as a result of the reduction in migrant labour—not only an opportunity, but an imperative for the UK economy—is to train up more of our own people to get into such sectors and to ensure that the route into developing a career in construction is as easy as possible. We are 100% behind that opportunity.

I have to say, however, that the Government are not strategic in developing those opportunities. There is much more that they can do. They have absolutely outsourced responsibility for skills policy to employers. Of course employers need to play a key role—they want to take these people on and need to be involved every step of the way on training—but the more the Government have put employers in the driving seat over the past 12 years, the more the skills shortages have grown. In a variety of sectors—the construction industry is no exception—we have seen a massive reduction in the number of people who are able to be trained up.

[Kirsty Blackman]

An awful lot of what we have talked about is focused on England, but CITB is national, over all these islands. The difference in Scotland is that we are doing some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting: we have Developing the Young Workforce, which is a partnership between the private sector and education, in an attempt to ensure that the skills that come through are those that are needed by business. DYW is now embedded in Scotland and is a good success story. I urge him and the Minister to look into what is happening with it, and to consider it as a basis for something that could go forward in England.

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Lady is right that the devolved authorities in Wales and Scotland have innovated in some areas. I am conscious of some of those innovations, and am happy to learn more about them. I thank her for that invitation.

To turn to the draft order, we supported the levy rates being halved temporarily under the previous order to 0.175% on directly employed workers and 0.625% on taxable subcontractors, net of CIS—the construction industry scheme—to support businesses through the pandemic, at a time when workers were being furloughed and many works were being postponed and delayed, and when much less training was happening. It is encouraging that, as we return to some kind of normality, businesses across the sector are able to develop projects and developments, so we support the return to the previous level.

The Minister was right to say that the draft order is not the beginning and end of investment in construction skills, but a lot more needs to be done from a strategic perspective. The Government need to recognise that an industry that is largely focused on subcontracted work will often have everyone saying that training up the next generation is someone else’s responsibility. The idea that the sector will just do that itself if we get out of its way and give it the space to do so is optimistic at best, and arguably naive. That is what we have seen: not enough people are being attracted into the sector.

It is vital to ensure that the CITB is able to support such training needs over the next three years. That is why we support the return to the pre-pandemic levy rates. We need to ensure the right balance in the draft order between supporting businesses and the continued training and development of staff, while ensuring that smaller businesses are encouraged and not penalised, in particular when starting to get back on their feet post pandemic. Overall, the order largely does that, retaining the wage bill exemption threshold for the levy at £120,000. We think that that is sensible, given the challenges faced by business.

We need to ensure that there is a strong conversation between Government and the sector. The idea that it will simply take up the slack is not one that we agree with. It is important that the sector takes responsibility for ensuring that there is a strategic plan to attract the next generation, and that people at all levels and in all geographies are able to access it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West made a powerful point in that regard: we need to make sure that in the smaller towns and areas without a big construction industry—perhaps those that have smaller amounts of new house building going on—people are able to access those opportunities, too.

As the Minister will be aware, there is still some resentment from larger employers that they are required to pay both the CITB and apprenticeship levies. It is therefore crucial that the CITB levy adds value to businesses and the wider construction workforce and, indeed, that it is seen to do so. Having diligently read through the CITB four-year strategic plan for 2021-2025—my speech says “scanned through”, but actually I read it diligently—I know that £66.9 million is allocated for other support.

With the need to ensure that the CITB levy is value for money, and in the interest of transparency, can the Minister tell us a bit more about what “other support” actually encompasses and ensure that the sector is aware of where exactly that money is going? There is also £2 million being spent on research. Can the Minister set out what sort of projects and research will be undertaken and how that will lead to more skilled workers in the future?

I note that although construction was one of the first three T-levels launched in September 2020, T-levels do not actually muster a mention in the four-year strategic plan. Can the Minister outline how T-levels fit into the CITB’s plans for the future of the workforce, particularly in terms of building pipelines for the next generation to enter the construction sector?

Since the introduction of the construction T-level, the Department for Education has added skills bootcamps and flexi-apprenticeships for construction. The Minister spoke about bootcamps a moment ago; I would be interested to hear how many people he anticipates going on those bootcamps over the four-year period and whether he believes that they are delivering on what Government expected.

The skills shortages are profound at the moment. On that basis, I question whether unpaid traineeships, in a sector that is already understaffed, are the most attractive way of attracting new people into the sector. Has the Minister given any thought to expanding the number of apprenticeships, rather than funding traineeship opportunities?

I welcome that the Government appear to have backtracked on their proposals to defund the majority of BTECs. Will the Minister update us on the future of BTEC routes into construction and provide us with a guarantee that businesses and those who want to work in the construction sector will be able to access those qualifications in the coming years?

As Committee members will be aware, the consequences of the fire at Grenfell are still deeply felt. It is important that lessons have been learned across the building industry. However, Grenfell and its aftermath are only briefly acknowledged in the strategic plan, with a reference to post-Hackitt and energy-efficient retrofits. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that future recruits and existing workers will be trained so that a mindset of ensuring safety and building sustainability is paramount in their thoughts?

As I stated earlier, the Opposition are content for the draft order to be passed, and we hope it will yield the results the Minister and the CITB hope for. However, we once again call on the Government to take a more strategic and hands-on role to ensure that there are more people to address the skills shortage. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions.

Higher Education Reform

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the support for our proposals from my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on Education. I will absolutely be listening—this is a real consultation—to his proposals and concerns about the maths and English GCSEs. I completely agree that the concept of someone having to pay back more than they have borrowed is unfair; addressing that is a manifesto commitment, so we are delivering it. I am proud that we are touching 20,000 students on degree apprenticeships. I want to go much further than that and have set a target of 10%.

On the international baccalaureate, my right hon. Friend will know, because he has known me for a very long time, that I am about delivery and outcomes. I have the Department focused on skills, schools and family. Sometimes if you try to hug the world, you don’t do anything well enough, but I hear what he says. Let me deliver what I can while I have the privilege of leading the Department and then go back and do some more afterwards.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement; I recognise that a lot is going on this morning and that not everything has happened on the normal timeline, so I appreciate it. I add my voice to those expressing solidarity with the Ukrainian people as the horrific events unfold.

The UK Government are presiding over a cost of living crisis, yet they are pursuing policy after policy such as the national insurance hike, the universal credit cut, the mandatory energy loan—even for students without a permanent address, who will have to pay it back despite not necessarily getting it this year—and now this. The UK Government’s decision to create a lifelong graduate tax by increasing the number of years in which graduates pay back will affect only those who are not well off enough to pay it back already. So the tax will hit hardest those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

If new students will on average pay £6,000 more back, where is the money going to come from? Has the Secretary of State done any assessment of the effect on those people’s pension pots as they approach retirement age, given that £6,000 less disposable income will be available to them? If half the students will be paying back the loan for almost their entire lifetime, it makes little difference to them what the total value of the loan is. The changes proposed benefit those who are already paying back, not those who have no hope of doing so.

In Scotland we believe in free education. We believe that it is important, and we will keep tuition free. I make no apologies for that position; it is the right thing to do. How can the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues who paid nothing to attend university justify burdening those who go to university now with lifelong debt?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s remarks and her solidarity on the situation in Ukraine.

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady because, when we look at the overall reforms, we should focus on the outcomes for students. That is what the reforms do. The lifelong learning entitlement, the work that we have done on skills, the ability to do a T-level as a fusion between an apprenticeship and an A-level—there are different paths to achieving a great career as an adult.

Non-graduates continue to pay—at the moment, all taxpayers fund higher education in England at 41p in the pound. We do not think that that is fair or equitable. As former students reach 50 or 51 years old at the 30-year repayment stage, they are coming to their peak ability to earn, so it is only fair that they be able to pay back the loan that they have taken out to give them the opportunity of a great job.

Kinship Care for Babies

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you very much for chairing this debate, Ms Fovargue. I give massive thanks to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who I know has worked in this area, particularly on improving the life chances for babies, for a significant time, and has done a massive power of work on it. I am glad that she has brought this debate today and given us the opportunity to speak about it.

I particularly recognise the speech given by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). It was a brave speech to give, but not an easy one. Nothing compares to lived experience in these debates. We are so often talking about things that an awful lot of us do not know enough about, so it is hugely important to have that experience. I thank him very much for bringing that to us.

I wanted to make a few comments, particularly from the Scottish point of view. I do not know very much about how the care system works in England, and may use terms that are Scottish-specific, and are not as relevant in England. I begin by apologising for that.

First, kinship care is absolutely not just about grandparents. It is important to recognise that. As the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said about the family that she talked about, it was not the grandparents who were caring for the baby. Some of the people who have come to me in my constituency, who have been involved in kinship care, are concerned that everything that relates to it is set up expecting the kinship carers to be grandparents.

Sometimes it is some of those younger kinship carers, who are in work, who are struggling to get the understanding, rather than the people on pensions, for whom there are more systems in place. In one of the families that I spoke to, the adults looking after the children went along to a meeting and everybody was 30 years older than them. They felt, “Well, we’re not going to get very good help, assistance and support from our peers here, because these people don’t seem to be our peers.” There was a gap there; they felt that something was missing.

Throughout Scotland, kinship carers get the same allowance as foster carers. That is important, because we are recognising the importance of kinship care. Unfortunately, my understanding is that kinship carers are not entitled to the child element of universal credit if the child is a looked-after child. Clearly, that needs to change.

There needs to be a recognition that although the children—babies, in the case we are talking about—are looked-after children, in a lot of cases the kinship carers are going through a significant number of difficult legal processes, as well as financial expense. Those carers probably did not plan or arrange their lives for this to happen. I do not see why the child element of universal credit should be excluded just because the children have the title “looked-after children”. We have to remember that for some people involved in kinship care, the children are not classed as looked-after children, so they are in a different category.

In Scotland, people who are kinship carers of babies can get the baby box. Provided that the baby is under six months old, a family involved in a kinship-care relationship can ask their social worker to ensure that the baby box is delivered. They can get that box if the child is under six months old. That is important in levelling the playing field and ensuring that everyone gets the universal entitlement that there is in Scotland, whether or not the baby is with the birth parents or in a kinship-care arrangement.

In Scotland, children are also eligible for the best start grants, for the Scottish child payment and for the twos provision—the provision in nurseries for children under three years old. They are eligible if the young person is a looked-after child, subject to a kinship care order or something related to that.

In Scotland, we have given huge attention to ensuring that looked-after children get the best possible outcomes. The situation brought up by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) is an illustration of how much the system has absolutely failed if that is the outcome he has seen for the young people he worked with. In Scotland, we have made a promise to young people that we plan to keep: by 2030, all those young people involved in the care system will not be faced with a care system, but will be raised with love and compassion, which is what every young person should be raised with.

Whether children are raised with either or both of their birth parents, in foster care, in placements or in kinship care, or if they have a looked-after order in place, surely what we should want for all of them is that they should be raised with love and compassion. It is incredibly important to ensure that that is front and centre.

Previously, I was the looked-after children’s champion in my local authority, when I was a councillor. The issue is therefore pretty close to my heart. We need to do a significant amount more. In talking about the benefits of kinship care, there is the comparison with the other elements of the care system. It is important to have those other elements, but it is clear that some of them have comparatively very poor outcomes for children. For example, young people in out-of-authority placements have significant problems, which make it much more difficult for them to achieve their potential in life. Kinship care is one of the elements that results in the best outcomes for young people.

Why should kinship carers get paid? That was mentioned earlier. They should get paid because what has happened is not what they planned for. The system is difficult, which is necessary—I understand why: some sort of legal system needs to be in place around how kinship care works. But navigating that system, when people did not expect to have to navigate it, is expensive and difficult. We owe the people who choose to be kinship carers or foster carers looking after young people who are in corporate care. We owe them, and therefore we need to do better than we are currently doing.

Draft Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 General Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr Streeter. I want to start by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East. The measure is poorly thought out and it is ideological, which is the main reason for our opposition to it. I want to talk about various things that the Minister mentioned and agree with some of the things that the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned.

But first I want to briefly mention the hon. Member for Sleaford and—Hykeham?

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

North Hykeham.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Sorry. It is invaluable to have the hon. Lady’s experience in this place. She talks from a knowledgeable point of view about how long it takes to train doctors. I imagine it took her many years to train to become a consultant. The Government are missing the fact that it is not just the five years to become a junior doctor that we need to consider. Some people train for 15 or 20 years to get to the positions where we have the gaps. We cannot train such people overnight. The Government perhaps overlooked that issue when they introduced this measure.

The Minister mentioned the Migration Advisory Committee. I understand that that body was set up to make recommendations to Government, but the quality of the input is at issue here. The Government asked the Migration Advisory Committee to do a wide-ranging review of tier 2 with a view to recommending proposals that would substantially restrict inflows under that route. If it is asked to do that, it will give us things that restrict inflows under that route and not what is best for the economy and for the United Kingdom as a whole. It will give us what the Government asked it to do, so we cannot say that the proposal is impartial and has fully taken account of all the representations it received, because it was given a specific brief, which it has met. That was my first concern that needed to be made clear.

I have a few issues about the implementation and the document. As the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned, the Government did not undertake a full public consultation. They did not do an impact assessment. They have not been clear about how the money will be invested. We have had more clarity recently, with the Government predicting that it will be £100 million and saying that it will go to the Department for Education and that there will be Barnett consequentials, but that is not enough clarity. If employers are being asked to pay this tax, they need to be able to understand where the money is going and understand the benefits to the British economy of paying it. A tax is reasonable only if people can be convinced that they should pay it. The Government have failed to do that because of the lack of information they have provided.

I welcome that the explanatory memorandum states that there will be a review after one year of the amount of money that has been brought in, but there is no mention of a review of where the money is spent and the effects it has. Also not mentioned is the impact on employers and whether that will be taken into account in any review. Basically, the Government are committed to providing us with a headline, “This is the amount that we took in”, but no further information on the impact. If the Government are to justify this to the British public, it is important that they provide us with the information we need.

One thing that is not clear—I do not think it has been made clear to businesses—is whether there will be refunds. Let us say somebody is employed in the United Kingdom for one year and the company pays the upfront cost. What if they pitch up, they are here for a month and then they drop down dead or they toddle back off to the country that they came from because they decided it was too cold here? Will the Government give those companies a refund if they have not employed that person for a full year? That has not been clear in any of the information I have seen. I apologise if it has been made clear; I have not yet seen it. Certainly, a number of businesses do not understand the possible implications, so it has obviously not been discussed or publicised widely enough.

The points about the NHS have largely been covered by the hon. Member for Sleaford and—I will not attempt to say the second part of her constituency again—and by the hon. Member for Blackpool South. In saying that there has been plenty of time, the Minister does not recognise the fact that it takes a very long time to train people to fill some occupations. The hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned the numbers that the BMA got in touch about and the particular cost of this measure to the NHS.

One thing that is not clear is how much of the money that is taken in will go towards infrastructure funding to support the training of doctors and nurses. For example, will the size of lecture theatres and the number of tutors who train doctors and nurses be increased? Why was that not done five or 10 years ago to ensure that we did not have the shortages we have today? Businesses and public service bodies that are asked to pay this money as of April will not have the opportunity to fill those gaps that they needed to fill five or 10 years ago, in terms of the teaching frameworks that we have.

There is a particular issue around very highly skilled occupations in which we have very few experts. We have had issues in my constituency with recruiting senior doctors who are experts in gender reassignment surgery, and gender reassignment generally, because there are so few of them across the world. Whatever we do today, we will still not have those people in post tomorrow or next week; it will take a long time to get those specialists. I do not think the Government have made enough allowances for the most specialised occupations.

If the Government had done this in a more sensible way, they would have looked at the shortage occupation list that is already in use and applied that, rather than coming up with a new list. That would have been a more sensible way to do this. We have previously argued against some of the things on the shortage occupation list, particularly because it does not take account of specific geographic issues and the lower salaries in Scotland.

The proposal poses a specific issue for the Scottish economy for a number of reasons. We have a high proportion of rural communities and communities that are relatively highly reliant on one industry or business that employs most of the people in a village, for example. Even though it employs most people in the village, there may only be 20 or 30 employees and it may still be a relatively small business that is not generating a huge amount of profit. Despite the lower costs for small businesses, they will still be expected to pay the charge.

It can be particularly hard to attract people in specialist occupations to the most remote areas of Scotland, where there is maybe not much access to services or a big supermarket. It is hard enough to attract those people anyway. If companies now have to pay extra money to attract them, that will be a real issue, particularly in the most rural areas where there is not a devolved settlement. I cannot imagine the Department for Education prioritising training in a small, rural community in the north of England in order to have one person filling one role. That would not be cost-effective for the Government, but this measure will cost such small businesses a huge amount of money.

I specifically raised those issues around rural communities. The other thing about Scotland is that our economy relies more heavily on small businesses than England’s, which is partly because of the rural nature of much of Scotland. From the information the Government have provided, I cannot tell the differential impact that the charge will have on small businesses; the Government have simply not provided that much information. They have provided information on how much money they think they will get in total, but there has been no breakdown of the impact on different sectors or communities. That highlights how poorly thought out this is.

The Scottish Government wrote to the UK Government and asked for information about the impact on Scotland but were not provided with it. If the UK Government intend to implement charges such as this across the whole of the United Kingdom, they need to be clear about the impact on Scotland and answer our request for information about that.

The last thing I want to touch on is something I have brought up in relation to immigration in a number of other settings, and I will continue to do so. The UK Government are setting out their stall—that it will be “global Britain”, trading across the world. I have previously raised the issue of trading with Commonwealth partners, given our massively high refusal rates of visitor visas for people coming from Nigeria or Pakistan, for example. If we want to have influence with those countries, have them look favourably upon us and sign free trade agreements with them, we need to be nicer to them than we currently are. There is a major issue with visitor visas.

This charge will be a major issue as well. If we are saying to people in other countries, “We would love you to sign a free trade deal that will allow us to export lots of stuff to your country—but by the way, we don’t want any of your people to come to our country,” that will be a real issue in the negotiation of free trade agreements. What I can see coming down the line is that once we have implemented the regulations, and once doctors being trained in India are less likely to be able to take up a post in the United Kingdom, that will affect our ability to strike decent, favourable deals for the UK.

I have spoken to Ministers before about soft power. Britain is not putting itself in a positive position on the world stage by the behaviour it is exhibiting on immigration. If we want to have better influence and the “global Britain” panacea being suggested to us by some of those who are most in favour of Brexit, we need to change the attitude of this Government.

[The Chair]

We have had four sparkling contributions, with lots of questions. I return to the Minister to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

First, the immigration skills charge is purely to do with those outside the European Economic Area and there are no plans to apply the charge to EU nationals. We would have to amend primary legislation. When we leave the EU, we will be able to take steps to control EU immigration, but the precise way that is to happen has not been determined. The immigration charge is purely to do with people from outside the European Economic Area and there are no plans to apply that to the EU. The Home Office Minister is in another debate today at the same time; otherwise, I am sure he would have been able to confirm that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to our sending a conflicting message about being open for business, a point that was also made by the other shadow spokeswomen. We remain open to attracting the brightest and best from overseas. As I set out in my opening remarks, the exemptions to the immigration skills charge show the commitment, supporting global knowledge and the exchange of skills. However, we must have the right skills domestically and we are way behind.

The vote to leave the EU demonstrated the importance of making the economy work for people of all backgrounds, in all areas of the country. The fact is that British individuals in our country are losing out because of the decisions of employers instead to recruit people, often from poorer countries. That is why we introduced the immigration skills charge.

The consultation was done by the Migration Advisory Committee. It undertook a thorough review and consulted widely. It issued a public call for evidence, receiving 251 written submissions and meeting representatives from 200-plus public and private sector employers. I will happily send a list of every single one to members of the Committee, if they would like—I do not have it on me today. Our job is to listen to the views of the Migration Advisory Committee and we followed its recommendations. There was a consultation, but it was done by that specific, respected body and the people on it.

In terms of the fee, the Department for Education is paying IT development costs of about £600,000 in 2016-17. That is not coming from the income raised from the charge. The small ongoing administration costs are approximately 1%. As I said in my opening remarks, the money is going into the Consolidated Fund, but it will be spent on skills. We are discussing with various people how that money should be spent. I would hope that it will sustain, for example, the institute of technology colleges and/or the lifelong learning and so on that we announced, but it will be spent on skills.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about the stats and the closure of the UKCES. The reason I go on about the “Nightmare on Skills Street”, as I describe it, is because the Department and many other bodies collect a huge range of statistics about skills and apprenticeships and social disadvantage. The reason why we have the skills and apprenticeships priorities that we do—widespread, quality provision, social mobility and addressing our skills needs, particularly of women in STEM—is all the data and the analysis going on in the Department, with the Skills Funding Agency and many other organisations.

Let me turn to the public sector and the health service, which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the Opposition spokesman. We need to put this into context. The number of doctors, nurses and teachers recruited through a tier 2 visa route—the thing we are talking about today—is low. The MAC’s report found that 3,600 certificates of sponsorship were used for doctors and 2,600 for nurses for the year ending August 2015. In terms of teachers, the same report showed that 164 certificates of sponsorship were used for science teachers and 10 for teachers of Mandarin in 2015. Let me put that in context. The use of tier 2 visas is relatively low in terms of the whole number.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the numbers are relatively low, why do the Government not exempt the NHS and the teaching professions?

[Robert Halfon]

For two reasons. First, we are trying to change behaviours and develop—[Interruption.] If I am given a chance, I will set out all the things we are doing to invest in skills in the NHS. The second reason is to raise funds to invest in skills. We want to change behaviours and we want to raise funds. We want to share the burden of paying for the cost of skills across the United Kingdom and not put all of the burden on the hard-pressed taxpayer but share it fairly.

Free Childcare

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is really nice to speak on a petition in Westminster Hall; I have spoken in a number of other Westminster Hall debates, but never on a petition, so it is nice to have another first 18 months into the job. I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for leading the debate. As Members would expect, I wish to talk about the situation in Scotland, and what we are doing there on early learning and childcare. I shall discuss the real-life importance of childcare provision. The hon. Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Warrington North both gave a lot of real-life examples; I, too, will discuss a few. I shall also talk about the importance of choice for parents.

I shall start by talking a little about the numbers and finances. Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South, have discussed the amount the Government will spend to increase the number of free hours. I understand that the UK Government are committed to spending an extra £1 billion by 2020. The Scottish Government are committed to spending £500 million by 2021; considering how much smaller Scotland is than England, that is a stark contrast.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)]

May I correct the hon. Lady? Although there is an additional £1 billion, the figure is actually £6 billion by 2020.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Yes, the Scottish Government have committed to spending an additional half of the UK Government’s additional spend. Considering the differential in the respective populations, there is probably a differential in the spend. I took the figure for UK Government spending from the Library debate pack.

In Scotland, we will create 600 new early learning and childcare centres, with 20,000 additional qualified staff. Doubling the free early learning and childcare hours for all three and four-year-olds, as well as for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, will benefit families by more than £4,500 per year, per child. That is a significant saving. I will come on to discuss the importance of that in the context of choice.

Our doubling of free childcare in Scotland will not be linked to employment status, unlike the changes down here, but changes will be made in both England and Scotland, and I do recognise that England is making positive changes to childcare provision. Our respective Governments are doing that in slightly different ways, with slightly different funding structures. I am not criticising the UK Government for increasing the number of free hours; quite the opposite. It is a very good thing. I have spoken before about how important it is.

I have a five-year-old and a three-year-old, and I have friends with similarly young children. A number of the women have had to go back to work for nothing. After the childcare costs are taken out, it turns out that they have gone back to work for pretty much no pay. The hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned £800 for three days’ childcare a week; for a while, we were paying £300 a month for one day a week. That is an incredible amount of money, and it is difficult to earn that much in a month when working only one day a week.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case. Does she agree that there is a compelling need for both partners in a household to work, and that sometimes inhibits childcare provision? If they do not work, they will not be able to pay for that provision.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. There is a real problem with choice for families. In some cases, families cannot afford to go to work because of the cost of childcare. We should not be in that situation. All parents—men and women—should be able to choose whether they go into the workplace. For some parents, it is much healthier to go to work. I was a rubbish stay-at-home mum and did not enjoy it very much at all. I did not do it for particularly long, because it just was not for me—I was going mad. It was much better for me to be in the workplace, but in some cases it was costing me money to do that. I was having to spend more on childcare than I was earning, especially once commuting was taken into account. As has been mentioned, that is a real issue in rural areas, and there is a need for specific provision for such areas.

Choice is a real issue. There has been a little discussion about whether childcare is a women’s issue. In Aberdeen and my local area, it is probably more of a women’s issue than in some other areas of the country. We have so many people, mostly men, who go offshore for work. As they are offshore for two or three weeks at a time, there is a real issue with women going back to work. They certainly cannot work night shifts, because there is nobody there to care for the children overnight. Historically, a huge number of women have had to decide not to work on the basis of their partner’s working hours. The lack of flexibility in childcare is a real issue in that respect.

[Alison McGovern]

Does the hon. Lady agree that her argument is an absolutely cast-iron reason why this issue has to be addressed in a devolved way? It has to be devolved down to the best possible level, because local economies are different and not everything can be dictated from Whitehall.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is really important that we look at how this issue is addressed in terms of devolution, and in different areas, because there are specific challenges—around specific industries, such as the one I mentioned; around rurality and the kind of distances involved in some rural areas; and around staff numbers.

We have a specific issue in Aberdeen with attracting qualified staff, because as we have historically had a lot of people working in the oil industry, where they have made lots of money, housing is more expensive than in other areas. Consequently, someone who works in childcare, or even teaching, will find it more difficult to live there. Although we have made local provision to deal with some aspects of this issue, we are not there yet, and it is necessary that local authorities, institutions and organisations can have input into how childcare provision is managed.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about Aberdeen, which is one of the areas taking part in a pilot scheme to examine the different models of childcare that might suit families in different areas of the country, as part of the Scottish Government’s aim to double childcare provision. Does she agree that it is very important that childcare matches the needs of not only the local area, but individual families, whose work lives may have very varied patterns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend has given me a nice opportunity to talk about the trials that we are undertaking. Nobody, certainly in the UK, has cracked this childcare thing. We have not all got it sorted; there is no way that we can look at the system and say, “It’s perfect. We’ve sussed it out.” We all need to learn from each other about what works in different areas, and ask whether those things would work in ours. The Scottish Government are undertaking three trials, on three different things that local authorities have specifically requested.

In Edinburgh, the trial is establishing outdoor nursery provision. Children who live in the centre of the city may not get out too often to the woods and forests around Edinburgh, so that local trial, in which the Scottish Government will invest £32,000, will provide access to outdoor learning for specific groups of children. We will see how that works, and will evaluate it.

In Aberdeen, in my constituency, we are having a stay-and-play session for parents of two-year-olds. A group of parents have been reluctant to leave their two-year-old in nursery provision; they are not quite sure how that would work, and perhaps think that it is a bit too far for a two-year-old. The parents will be able to stay with their two-year-old, who will still get the benefit of being in an educational setting. Also, the parents will benefit. As was said earlier, parenting small children is terrifying, and a new parent has no idea if they are doing the right thing, ever; they just have to try their best. This trial is a good opportunity for parents to learn, too.

In the Scottish Borders, the trial being undertaken by the Scottish Government is about wrap-around provision—provision outside of core hours, holiday provision and after-school provision, and provision that is more appropriate for most people with normal working lives. Hardly anybody I know can fit in a job in the three hours and 10 minutes of morning nursery care that my youngest child receives. In fact, a lot of people struggle to fit in a job between 9 am and 3.15 pm, which is when my eldest child is at school.

[Kirsten Oswald]

That is an incredibly important point. Nobody I know, or almost nobody, works from 9 am to 3 pm. If I had not been able to get childcare provision from 8 am to 6 pm, including for holidays, I would have had to stop my career progression when my children were little. It is really vital that we do not impede women, children or families in that way.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. As the Scottish Government go forward with these pilots, and with possible changes, we will look to have much more flexibility, and much more access to nurseries and childminders, rather than just the kind of maintained provision discussed earlier; I am not sure that we use that phrase in Scotland, but I understand what it means. We look to have much more flexibility in the settings that children and young people can access with these free hours, which will allow more flexibility around hours and holidays.

I have already talked about choice and the benefits of choice. Heriot-Watt University has carried out a study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that says that

“reinforcing and extending the improved provision for good quality, flexible, subsidised childcare across the working year”

would be one of the “most significant measures” to tackle poverty.

We have spoken about how childcare can have the benefit of tackling poverty by changing the system for parents who cannot afford to work. We have also spoken about the benefits of childcare as regards children’s attainment; actually, it has benefits for the attainment of all children, and not just those who are starting off with a disadvantage and are, if you like, at the bottom of the pile. However, we have spoken less about the benefits for the workplace and for productivity, although that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington North.

If people can access the workplace without worrying about their children, and about whether they can get home for a 3.15 school pick-up, they will concentrate more on their job, and as a result they will be more productive. The more we can do to increase the choice for parents, the better. Whether they choose to work or not to work, we need to ensure that they can make that choice at all times; that would benefit everybody, including employers.

I produced a blog for Family Friendly Working Scotland, during its National Work Life Week, that encouraged employers to consider flexible working seriously. We are trying to make clear to employers the benefits of flexible working—for them, as well as for employees. The real benefit for the employer is in improved productivity, and in having access to a talent pool to which they currently do not have access. Sometimes employers hear the words “flexible working” and think, “Panic! We can’t do that!”, but some aspects of flexible working are really very reasonable. If, for example, an employer is able to give shift patterns a couple of weeks out, instead of a week out, that makes all the difference for employees when it comes to planning and childcare. Using grandparents and other family members for childcare was mentioned earlier. Some women, parents and families do not have choice; some of them are not able to access grandparents. For example, a parent may not have a partner and so they have to try to do everything themselves.

The benefits of increasing free childcare are so wide-ranging that it is almost impossible to talk about them all in a half-hour speech, or even in a three-hour debate such as today’s. However, I think everybody recognises that increasing free childcare has huge benefits, and both the UK and Scottish Governments have made positive moves in the direction of increasing the amount of free childcare, and increasing provision, particularly around the number of hours and the changes to allow two-year-olds free nursery care.

In the future, we can learn from each other—something I always seem to find myself stressing in Westminster Hall. The Scottish Government can learn from what the UK Government are doing, and the UK Government can learn from some of the pilots that we are running, and some of the changes that we are making in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Wirral South said, local authorities and devolved institutions can learn from what is happening in other areas. They can learn whether good things that are happening elsewhere can be transferred across.

On the whole, what we are doing is largely positive, but I would like to see more of that, and more choice for parents; I would also like more access to free, high-quality childcare, and the assurance that enough funding will be provided for these things to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

Absolutely. I am a great fan of maintained nursery schools. There is one in my own constituency, which has significant pockets of deprivation, that provides outstanding support for children. That is why the Government have committed, as part of the funding formula, to an extra £55 million a year for at least the next two years to support maintained nursery schools over and above the normal funding formula. Maintained nursery schools make up only 3% of childcare places. However, 98% of them are good or outstanding and 80% work in areas of disadvantage, which is why we want to consult them further about how we can support them in their very important work.

We know that good quality education at two can have a fantastic effect on a child’s development. We want children in care, children who have left care, adopted children and children with special educational needs and disabilities to benefit from that, as we have a duty to help them thrive and reach their potential. It is unacceptable that a child should have inferior life chances because of their background; this programme is key to tackling the problem. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that it is vital we help such children.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is still the case that a child’s long-term future exam results can be predicted by the highest level of their mother’s qualifications. Does the Minister agree that both our Governments are working hard to do something about this and that we should continue to keep this as a top priority?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I did not know that interesting statistic. The hon. Lady is right. Providing better early education can only ever be a really good thing.

Some hon. Members have asked why all two-year-olds do not get a fully funded place. Such places are not offered to all two-year-old children because evidence tells us that the greatest proportion of parents return to work and need childcare when their children turn three. Some parents feel that two years is too young for their children to be in formal childcare and prefer to keep them at home. I was similar to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and did not stay in the childcare environment for as long as I could have done. That probably gives me an added respect for the amazing individuals who work in that incredible profession.

We wanted to focus resources where they would have the greatest impact for the largest number of families. That is why we prioritised the introduction of an additional 15 hours for the working parents of three and four-year-olds.

The main driver behind the two-year-old programme is to improve outcomes for the children who need the most help in getting the best start in life. For that reason, we do not impose conditions on parents who are eligible for a place, but we hope the programme will support parents from poorer backgrounds to move into employment and training. We have come an incredibly long way since 2013. As I have already mentioned, 70% of eligible two-year-olds now take up their entitlement to a funded learning place.

We also know that 84% of all two-year-olds who take up their entitlement do so in good or outstanding settings, which means that children are receiving their learning in high quality environments. That is fantastic progress and will ensure that thousands of disadvantaged children get the right start in life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

Yes, indeed. The productivity challenge facing the country is grave, and our universities are a big part of the answer. New universities in higher education cold spots such as Somerset will be a big part of our solution to these challenges.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I understand that the UK Government have yet to confirm whether the allocation of the apprenticeship levy in Scotland will be based on the number of employers in Scotland, or the percentage of the levy paid in Scotland. Will the Minister provide that clarification today? If not, when will he?

[Nick Boles]

As I indicated to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), I have been in discussions with the Minister representing the Welsh Government in this conversation. These discussions are ongoing. This is a matter for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, not something for which I am directly responsible, but I know that there have been intensive negotiations and discussions. I do not want to pass the buck, but I fear that I will have to encourage the hon. Lady to direct her question to a Minister at Treasury questions, because the Treasury and HMRC are handling these discussions.