Bereaved Children: Government Support

Laura Trott Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for her powerful speech introducing the debate and for all her work on this subject.

It is normal in debates in this Chamber to bring the stories of our constituents to illustrate the issue, but today I am going to share my story as well. In 2002, I had a five-month-old baby and a two-year-old toddler, and my beloved husband was diagnosed with terminal oesophageal cancer. A year later, he died, just a week before Ellie’s fourth birthday and Laura was 17 months old. You cannot explain to a baby or a four-year-old what death means. One day their parent is there, the next he is gone. I remember Laura, who had just learned to say the word “Dadda”, going round the house opening the doors, going “Dadda, Dadda”, because she could not find him. I did not really know anything about the impact of bereavement on children, but in the last 20 years, I have learned quite a lot.

In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day—[Interruption.]

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and we are all honoured to hear it.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention.

In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day. By age 16, approximately one in 20 young people in the UK will have experienced the death of a parent. I became the chair of the Widowed and Young organisation and met loads of kids and their parents through that work, many of whom I am still friends with today. I saw the impact on scores of children who had lost their mum or dad. Thousands more in the UK have lost a sibling, which is also a profound grief for children, which is little understood. I saw these children grow up and adjust to their lost; the progress they made and then the setbacks; the challenges with attachment, loss, fear and abandonment; the issues with friendships and relationships; struggles with school; dangerous coping mechanisms and risk-taking in teenage years; mental health challenges; anger; intense emotions and anxiety. Just for the sake of my daughters, that is not all related to them.

While children are navigating all of that, the challenge of becoming a single parent at exactly the same moment that you are bereaved cannot be overstated, and that is compounded exponentially when the bereavement is sudden and unexpected. The day my husband died, my children came home from nursery and needed me to be the same reliable, loving, stable mum they knew—up at 7 the next day needing their breakfast, and so it went on. There is not much time to navigate your own grief in all of that.

On top of that is the loss of income. The challenge of holding down a job, bringing in a wage, while being a grieving single parent to grieving children is immense, as are the unaffordable costs of childcare that enable you to go to work at all. But in a way, I was lucky, because I was bereaved before 2017 and I received the widowed parent’s allowance—a payment that was funded by the national insurance contributions that my husband Nick had made during 20 years of full-time work, contributions designed to pay into a system that is meant to pay out when needed. He will never receive a state pension.

What difference did the widowed parent’s allowance make? It made all the difference. It allowed me to work part time. It allowed me to be present for my children, to help keep them stable while the world around them felt unsafe and scary. It made a part-time income go further. It helped pay for childcare and a few out-of-school activities so my children could live the same life as their peers. It also helped pay for the holiday clubs that they had no choice but to go to so that I could go to work —and they did not always want to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

May I say what a privilege it has been to be part of this debate, and how much I admire all those who have spoken about their personal stories? I do not underestimate for a second how difficult it is, but suffering a catastrophic event and trying to make other people’s lives better is about the most admirable thing someone can do.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting it in place. She is so self-evidently right in what she says: there needs to be a general strategy, and we need data to be made available. It is worth thinking about why those things have not happened to date, and making suggestions about how we can overcome those barriers in future.

Governments have historically been bad at cross-departmental data collection, as we know. That has been grappled with over time, but there has been no clear solution to date. I have seen such working function more effectively on occasion, such as in cross-departmental working committees on something specific. I offer that up to the Minister as a suggestion that might work. For example, in recent years there have been changes to implement a “no wrong door” policy on reporting a death. That took a lot of time. Previously, when reporting a death, as I am sure many in this Chamber have unfortunately had to do, people had to go to multiple Government Departments before the death could be recognised. That has been changed for the better, and I hope that something similar could be adopted in this case.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), whose APPG does incredible work on these matters, mentioned good practice in schools. We should think about how to collate it more systematically. We are quite effective when it comes to education policy, through the Education Endowment Foundation, which picks up what works from an academic perspective and shares good practice among schools. By and large, that is missing in the special educational needs and disabilities space, but it is also missing here. We have heard about good practice, which I am sure exists up and down the country—the hon. Lady mentioned Oakwood primary school—but there is nowhere to share it effectively. Will the Department think about how to take that forward? I am sure that there will be guidance, and I am just as sure that it could be made better.

On overall data collection, when a death is reported, it is linked to one individual rather than to a wider database. Change will need to be made on that, and the referral to the pathway is critical, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said. She also mentioned that that now happens in cases of suicide. I hope the Minister will take that up today, because we have seen that it can work. It may take time, and I think we all acknowledge that government is difficult—it is not easy to wrangle different Departments together—but that could definitely be taken forward.

Before preparing for this debate, I had not realised what the figures are for the outcomes for bereaved children, and I was quite shocked. If we have not gone through this catastrophic event, it is too easy to overlook the impact it has on young people. The statistic that the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) gave about the number of offenders who have suffered a bereavement was shocking. I hope and believe that this will be even more grist to the mill for the Education Minister to try to deal with this, because it is one of many areas across Government where early intervention—helping people—is not only the right thing to do but will benefit us and wider society.

What we have heard today is that many children who go through this have amazing families—we have some examples of those amazing families here today—and they have people around them who will support them, help them and do whatever they can to ameliorate this catastrophic incident. But that is not true of every family. Of course, the state will miss things, but if we can set up a system that minimises the impact of this catastrophic event on young people, that is the right thing to do.

I am very grateful to be part of this House today. It is these types of debate that take place in a relatively empty Chamber on a Thursday afternoon that can really make a difference to young people across the country. We have a very good Minister here, and I am sure he is about to tell us how he is going to sort this all out after many years. I commend the many voices who have spoken up today, and I am grateful to have been here for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

It is a disgrace that a Jewish Member of this House had his visit to a school cancelled following pressure and intimidation from pro-Palestinian protesters. That is abhorrent antisemitism. Over the weekend, the Secretary of State announced a welcome investigation into the trust, alongside Ofsted action. She said that she would “leave no stone unturned”. In that spirit, what is the right hon. Lady doing to address the role of the National Education Union in trying to prevent the visit?

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

Let me update the House: I am crystal clear that schools must be a place of safety and that no MP should ever be stopped from doing their job, but sadly, this is not the first concern about antisemitism in schools and this alone is not the only challenge we face. We will leave no stone unturned, as the right hon. Lady said. I have asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened. I will launch a review to ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems and processes in place. I will set out more in due course as to the shape of that, but we will of course consider any area in which antisemitism needs to be tackled. I would be happy to meet her to discuss this further because this is an issue, when it comes to tackling antisemitism, that all of us right across the House must show leadership on.

[Laura Trott]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s words. Bristol NEU publicly celebrated the cancellation of the visit from the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), describing it as a “win” and boasting that it sent a “clear message”. Over the weekend, the head of the NEU claimed that the visit taking place “at the height of the genocide in Gaza” was a mitigating factor for excluding a British Jew from the school. That is inexcusable. I will gladly meet the right hon. Lady. Will she also back my call for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look into the NEU, and will she ask it to investigate these outrageous statements?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Teachers are under clear duties around political impartiality, and that is extremely important and serious. In parallel, I have also been concerned as to some of what we have seen recently around the Teaching Regulation Agency’s approach. That is why I have asked the permanent secretary to review what has happened there and to ensure that we have the right processes in place, because no one who glorifies terrorist organisations should be teaching our children. Antisemitism has no place in our schools. We are investing more, but there is always more to do, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail with the right hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

There is a good reason why we have an independent economic forecaster in this country. That is because, thankfully, it does not let the Government get away with saying that £6 billion can be absorbed across Government at a time when the spending review has already allocated all the money. So let us have no more of this nonsense: where is the £6 billion coming out of? Is it SEND or is it schools?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Let me be absolutely clear: these are council deficits. They will not be coming from school budgets. Over the course of this Parliament, we are investing more in SEND. We are picking up the pieces of a system on its knees left behind by the party opposite. Either the right hon. Lady has not read what the OBR has to say, or she is wilfully seeking to mislead parents and to scaremonger. It was not a priority for her in her conference speech; it is not a priority for her now.

[Bridget Phillipson]

Of course, Mr Speaker.

[Laura Trott]

The right hon. Lady can rail against the forecasts, the Tories, her own leaky Back Benchers and probably, privately, the Treasury all she likes, but the spending review has set departmental budgets for the year in question. There is not £6 billion down the back of the sofa, so unless she can say where else the £6 billion is coming from out of Government resource departmental expenditure limits—clearly, she just failed to do so—it must be coming out of schools or SEND. So let us try again: will she be straight with teachers, parents and her own Back Benchers, and tell us what is being cut? Is it SEND or is it schools?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady listened to what I just said. It is not coming out of school budgets. [Interruption.] We are investing—

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

The Education Secretary talks about wanting to improve outcomes for white working-class boys, yet disadvantaged children in Wales are being failed by the very model that she wants to introduce here in England. Is it not the case that the best thing she can do for white working-class pupils is to stop her school reforms?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I do not know how the right hon. Lady has the brass neck. For 14 years, we saw groups in our—[Interruption.]

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Conservatives had 14 years. We take this issue seriously, because we know that far too many children in our country from white working-class communities do not get the outcomes they deserve. A little humility on the Conservatives’ part would go a long way.

[Laura Trott]

What we did for 14 years was improve school standards. Not content with destroying standards, this afternoon the Secretary of State will, according to media reports, introduce a new lower-level qualification targeted at white working-class pupils. That is simply watering down standards for some of our most deprived children. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under this Government, the soft bigotry of low expectations is back?

[Bridget Phillipson]

It is absolutely nothing of the sort. What we inherited was a systematic failure of white working-class kids and children with special educational needs and disabilities in our country. I read the right hon. Lady’s conference speech with great care, and I looked out in that speech for any mention of children with SEND, of children with additional needs or, indeed, of some of the groups she has been talking about this afternoon. She had nothing to say on the topic. It is the usual confected outrage that has become the right hon. Lady’s hallmark.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

In the other place, Baroness Smith of Malvern, a Minister in the Department for Education, said:

“There is no clear scientific consensus on a negative impact from screen time and social media use on the mental health and neurological or functional development of children and young people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2025; Vol. 847, c. 55.]

I fundamentally disagree. There is overwhelming and extensive evidence of the harm caused, so I want to know the Government’s position. Does the Minister agree with his ministerial colleague or with me on this issue?

[Stephen Morgan]

Last year, the right hon. Lady’s Government claimed that action on mobile phones was prohibiting their use in schools and that guidance meant

“a consistent approach across all schools.”

Those are their words. In backing the Tory Government’s measures, was she wrong then, or is she wrong now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I completely support the Secretary of State’s opening words, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the devastating incident.

Government documents state that the first step in achieving their primary school readiness mission is meeting their target of recruiting 6,500 teachers. The Secretary of State claimed at the last oral questions that she has always been clear that the 6,500 teachers are in secondary schools. If that is true, can she explain how secondary school teacher recruitment contributes to improving primary school readiness for four-year-olds?

[Bridget Phillipson]

This Labour Government are delivering the teachers that are desperately needed right across our schools. We were left behind a terrible crisis when it came to recruitment and retention, but this Labour Government know that improving standards in our schools requires having the best possible teachers available to teach all our children. That is why we delivered a pay award, and why we are making sure that we are tackling all the issues around workload. We are getting on and delivering the plan for change. The right hon. Lady comes here with the same relentless negativity week in, week out. We are delivering new free breakfast clubs, free school meals, cheaper uniforms, high-quality childcare and more apprenticeships. That is the difference the Labour Government are making.

[Laura Trott]

This is farcical. Will the Secretary of State finally admit that the original pledge to hire 6,500 teachers included primary school teachers, and that the Government are now abandoning their pledge? The reality is that, according to their own website, there are 400 fewer teachers than last year.

Early Years Providers: Government Support

Laura Trott Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this interesting and thought-provoking debate. It is nice to see a degree of unanimity across the Chamber about the importance of early years high-quality provision.

Let me first deal with NICs, because that issue has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); the Lib Dem spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller); and the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). We know the impact that it is having on nursery settings up and down the country. It is not right that they are treated differently from the rest of the public sector, given that so much of their provision is entirely state-funded.

The impact of the changes has been talked about in very clear terms in this debate. It has been described as “catastrophic” by the Early Years Alliance. We know that 52% of settings are likely to reduce the number of early entitlement places on offer, and that the changes will result in fees going up for parents. That is not what anybody here wants. I know that the Minister understands that, so in his bids to the Treasury for the upcoming Budget, will he ask—as I am sure he has already—that more relief is given to early years for the provision of NICs?

One of the themes discussed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell)—in what I hope she does not mind me saying was a really excellent speech—and by the Lib Dem spokeswoman, was outreach to disadvantaged areas with the new offer. When we had the offer for two-year-olds, which was just limited by income, the take-up was not what we wanted. Now there is a wider offer, that outreach will be important. I hope that the Minister will speak to that. There is also a link between areas of disadvantage and children who are under the care of a social worker. What more will be done to make sure that social workers are aware of the provision in their local areas, and can direct families who may need it to that provision? That is very important. We know it may provide relief for the parents and a higher quality placement for the individual child. It would be very helpful if the Minister could come back on that today.

I want to talk about school readiness, because I absolutely welcome the Government’s focus in that area, which is very important. As I mentioned in my response to the Education Secretary’s statement the other day, the target we have is for the end of reception. It is therefore not really measuring school readiness as such; it is measuring the work of brilliant reception teachers, up and down the country. That is not actually what we want to measure.

We want to measure the things that the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman talked about: trying to get children ready to go to school. That would reduce the pressure on primary school teachers, rather than increase it. I am sure that the Government’s intention is not to increase it, but it is what will happen as a result of that target. We need to try to get those young people ready to learn and to go to school, because it makes such a difference to their ability to learn. I hope that the Minister will consider that as part of the school readiness work that he has going on at the moment.

As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, I would like to talk more about screens in the context of school readiness. The Government have brought forward a partnership for a national year of reading, which I think we can all agree is very positive, but the one thing that is driving the decline in reading in this country is overuse of screens by young people. I know that the Education Committee has done some brilliant work on this issue. We have to make sure that parents know that too much screen time is just not good for their children. We know that 25% of three and four-year-olds have phones. That is that is not good for them. It is delaying speech development, reading and socialisation, and that is being compounded by the reception baseline assessment now being done on a screen, which implies that children need to be able to use a screen by the time they get to reception.

A recent trip to a primary school alerted me to this. The reception teacher said, “I used to ask them whether they could split this orange apart or not, to be able to check their hand-eye co-ordination. Now it’s all done on a screen.” It is just wrong. If we want a change in school readiness—all Members present are interested in that; that is why we are at this debate—we need an increased focus on reducing screen use by young children, because parents too often just do not know that it is bad for their child. They are trying to do their best, and they think it is fantastic that they can give them a screen with some games on, but actually they are stopping them from being able to play. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest and others talked about the fact that play is crucial to early development, and we impede that by giving screens to children.

This debate has been really interesting. There is a degree of unanimity on the direction that we need to go in. I hope that some progress can be made on funding for early years provision and that we can try to drive up the usage of the free offers in disadvantaged areas. We need to shift the focus on school readiness to what we need to help parents do to get their child ready for school. I hope that, together, we can shift the emphasis and try to get screens out of young people’s lives, because that is a single thing that we can do to help them with their mental health and their school readiness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

The Secretary of State may dismiss banning smartphones in schools as a gimmick, but teachers, health professionals and parents are all calling for action to reduce children’s screen time. Every day we have new evidence of the harm that screens are doing, so why is the Education Secretary ignoring that and pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? Does she accept that that is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?

[Stephen Morgan]

Is that all that the right hon. Lady can go on? After 14 years, the Conservatives broke the education system. As I said, guidance is already in place for schools, and the majority of schools already have a ban on mobile phone use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to welcome my old primary school teacher Mrs Case to the Chamber today—I hope we all remain on our best behaviour. My question is very simple: does the Education Secretary believe that primary school teachers are indeed teachers?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to her teacher who joins us today. We all know that a brilliant teacher and the contribution that they make can always stay with us. I am slightly perplexed by the right hon. Lady’s question. She is obviously right, but after 14 years of Tory failure many of our teachers are sadly having to pick up the pieces of wider societal challenges—whether that is too many families being in temporary accommodation or the growing number of children in poverty. We are determined as a Government to turn that around.

[Laura Trott]

I am grateful for the confirmation that the Education Secretary does accept that primary school teachers are indeed teachers, but why is she then saying that they no longer count towards her manifesto pledge to recruit 6,500 more teachers? Is it because, contrary to the Department’s social media posts, teacher numbers are in fact going down, not up?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I do not know where the right hon. Lady has been, but she certainly has not been paying attention. We have been clear that we will make sure that we have 6,500 more teachers in secondary and specialist education and in further education colleges. This year alone we have 60,000 fewer children in primary schools, and that is why we are focusing our recruitment efforts in areas where we are seeing growth. It is common sense. It is this Labour Government who have delivered two pay rises for teachers, because we, the Labour party, value our brilliant teachers.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Laura Trott Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on whether the Government will be accepting the school teachers’ review body’s pay recommendation for 2025-26.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

May I start by thanking our teachers, school leaders and school staff for all they are doing right now to ensure a successful exam season for students, and indeed for all their hard work throughout the year?

Rather than scaremongering with fantasy statistics, the Government are getting on and delivering. We are already seeing positive signs that our plan for change is working. Teacher recruitment is up, with 2,000 more people in training than last year. Teacher retention is up, with thousands more teachers forecast to stay in the profession over the next three years. This Labour Government are getting on and delivering. Unlike the Opposition, who last year sat on the STRB report, hid from their responsibility and left it to Labour to sort out, this afternoon we will announce the teachers’ pay award, which will be the earliest announcement for a decade.

We understand the importance of giving schools certainty, giving them time to plan their budgets, and ensuring that they can recruit and retain the expert teachers our children need. The Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement will be coming out this afternoon—[Interruption.] It will show once again that this Labour Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott]

Mr Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous. It is astonishing that we have had to summon the Government to the House today, but the Minister cannot even tell us what pay rise teachers will get and whether it is going to be funded. That does not allow us to scrutinise the matter in this House.

The Government said that they would tax private schools to fund 6,500 more teachers, but the reality is that state schools have not got any of that money. Instead, we have had broken promises on compensating schools for the jobs tax, confirmation from the Department for Education itself that there will be a shortfall in teacher pay funding, which we are not allowed to discuss here today in this urgent question, and uncertainty as to what the actual pay rise for teachers will be. That is a disgrace, and it is the opposite of what people who voted for Labour expected.

All that is in the final two weeks when headteachers up and down the country have to decide whether to make teachers redundant in time for September—in fact, sadly, many schools will already have made the difficult decision to let good teachers go. These are job losses on the Minister’s watch, due to her inability to provide schools with the clarity that they need. Do not just take my word for it. Dan Moynihan, from the Harris Federation, says that it proposes to make 40 to 45 teachers redundant. Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which runs 90 state sector academies, said that the trust has been left with £10.5 million a year of unfunded costs. He said:

“It’s no good Treasury waving their hands and saying ‘efficiency’—that would be 400 job losses. Sector wide, that would extrapolate to ruinous harm in the one well-functioning public service: tens of thousands of redundancies.”

Simon Pink, the finance director at the Elliot Foundation, which has 36 primaries, said:

“This is the toughest budget…in a generation.”

One secondary school headteacher has already had to cut two teaching assistant posts and a teacher role due to rising national insurance and anticipated wage rises.

What is the pay rise that the Government recommend for teachers? The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on 28 April:

“There’ll be no additional funding for pay.”

Yesterday, the Government started to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. Will the Minister now fully U-turn and fund the national insurance rise and agree to fully fund the pay increases, whatever they are?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Neither I nor any Minister in this Government will take lessons from Conservative Members, who, after 14 long years in power, had still not restored real-terms spending in our schools to the level that they inherited. The brass neck of the Opposition is quite extraordinary. Conservative Members would also do well to remember the difficult decisions that this Government have had to take because of the utter mess that they left behind. The right hon. Lady was in the Treasury, creating the mess—she knows very well what happened.

Recruiting, retaining and supporting expert teachers is central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards in our schools. Despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets under the previous Government, this Administration are prioritising education and ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality teacher. We are working at pace to ensure excellence for every child. That is why we remain committed to our manifesto pledge for 6,500 teachers and to ensuring that it responds to the demand in secondary schools, special schools and further education.

We know that high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes, breaking down barriers to opportunity for every child, so recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers is clearly absolutely central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards. That is why, despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets, we are getting on and delivering on our plan for change. The right hon. Lady will have to wait, like everybody else, for the statement that she knows is coming this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Not only has the Education Secretary introduced a Bill to this place that will destroy standards in English schools, but now she has broken her promises on national insurance contributions compensation and is leaving schools in an impossible funding situation. Every MP has heard from headteachers who are stressed beyond belief at how to manage their funding. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that worried headteachers up and down the country will not have to make teachers redundant because of her broken promises: yes or no?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Lady has a firmer grip on anonymous briefings in the papers than on the details of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. She is more focused on petty political games in Westminster than on improving the lives of children and families up and down the country. The Bill will get qualified teachers in front of classrooms. It will teach a cutting-edge curriculum. It will drive down the costs of sending children to school. It will provide breakfast clubs for children who need them. It will stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. It is a single most important piece of child protection legislation in a generation. The Conservatives voted against it. They can snipe from the sidelines; we will get on with delivering change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Despite the Education Secretary’s best attempts to rewrite history, we Conservatives did not need a court to tell us that biological sex was real. She has on her desk the draft guidance for schools on gender questioning, and the final Cass report was published a year ago. If she is serious about protecting women and girls, why has she not published the guidance?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am serious about protecting the rights of women and girls. That is why I ran a women’s refuge for children and women fleeing domestic abuse, fleeing male violence, fleeing some of the most unimaginable abuse that anyone could ever see. I need no lessons on the importance of such provision.

The shadow Secretary of State asks a specific question, which I will answer. This is a sensitive area. We are talking about children’s wellbeing—often very vulnerable children who are experiencing stress. Although I recognise the importance of providing clarity and guidance for school leaders, we have to get it right. The Conservatives published draft guidance for consultation only a matter of months before the general election. It is right that we take stock following the full and final review from Dr Cass, which we accept should be the basis for how we take things forward.

[Laura Trott]

That draft guidance was produced a year and a half ago. The Education Secretary wants to talk about her record. Well, let me remind her that one of her first acts on coming into post was to pause implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which would have protected gender-critical voices. She is more concerned about listening to student union activists than to women. Will she apologise to the gender-critical women who were forced to spend eye-watering sums on legal fees to fight for their rights because of her actions?

[Bridget Phillipson]

From that question, I do not think you would know who had been in government for the past 14 years, Mr Speaker. The Conservatives had ample opportunity to clarify the position. The ruling of the Supreme Court was that Labour’s Equality Act 2010 was the basis for its judgment confirming that biological sex should be the basis for provision of single-sex services. Alongside that, the Court was also clear that everyone in our country deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and that trans people continue to receive protection in law. The Conservatives published guidance, in draft form, a matter of months of before the general election. It is right that we take this issue seriously and get it right. We do not need this shameless opportunism; this is about children’s wellbeing.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Laura Trott Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important UQ.

It is utterly extraordinary that we have had to summon the Government to the Chamber to provide clarity on whether they have axed a programme that ended yesterday—or so we thought—which supports 20,000 of our most vulnerable young people. The Government have been given lots of opportunities to clarify the funding situation. The Prime Minister was asked about it in the Chamber just last week. Either they did not know at that stage, or they just did not want to tell us—or, more importantly, the thousands of young people using the programme. Even by current Department for Education standards, this is utterly chaotic.

I do welcome the decision today, but can the Minister tell us when it was made? She recognises the impact that it has had on children and families up and down the country, but that impact is the result of her decisions and her delay. Can she please explain to us why this has happened and why the Government could not confirm the future of a £50,000-a-year programme sooner?

[Janet Daby]

As I have already said, I am delighted that we are now able to confirm that there will be £50 million for the adoption and special guardianship support fund for ’25-26. We will announce further details to the House in coming days, and we will open up the fund for applications as soon as possible.