Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb]

I absolutely agree. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Government are doing a lot to try to address this issue, but that is not to say that we cannot do more. We hear those stories of stigma, with children pretending to bring food out of their bags so that they do not miss out or so that they fit in, even if they do not have the actual food. We should be glad that over the years since, the system of free school meals has changed, so that people cannot tell which children are in receipt of free school meals. I will come back to that point, but it hopefully has encouraged parents to make use of the option.

Free school meals are estimated to save roughly £500 a child. Against such a low income, that amount makes a huge difference. For a family affected by the child benefit cap, it would increase their income by a fifth or more. Why, given the difference that it could make to their household, is every eligible family not claiming? There is a range of reasons. In some cases, there is a belief that their children might be bullied due to being in receipt of a free school meal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) mentioned. If there is one immediate outcome of this debate, I hope it is to reinforce the message to parents that no one can now identify which child is on a free school meal. There is no stigma in claiming—please make the application.

We know also that the same barriers exist as with any other form of state support, where barriers of language, agency, awareness and ability ensure that those facing the greatest disadvantages in our society are the least likely to access the support available. These are the families who would benefit most from this legislation.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

This Bill is so important exactly because of what my hon. Friend has just said. It removes administrative barriers that get in the way, but that can frequently be overcome sensibly. Importantly, it still provides an opt-out for parents, which is important, because not everybody would want to take this up for their child. Does he agree that this Government should do everything they can to remove any administrative barriers?

[Peter Lamb]

It has been a while since I looked at the numbers, but my understanding when I last looked was that the level of unclaimed benefits in our system is at least 10 times greater than the total value of benefit fraud. People are choosing not to access the support available by and large because of stigma or a lack of awareness, but the impact within our society is real, and we should be doing everything we can to reduce that stigma.

We all pay in so that there is a safety net for us when we need it and to ensure that other members of our community, our neighbours and the people we care about do not have to go without when they fall on difficult times. We should do everything possible to avoid the vilification that is disgustingly often put upon people simply because they are poor.

Beyond the moral argument, this measure is about the future of our country. Education is an investment in the future prosperity of our country and of our citizens. It is the bedrock of economic growth and of enabling people to live independent and successful lives. Auto-enrolment stands to improve educational outcomes in three ways. The most obvious is by reducing hunger, the impact of which upon concentration and educational performance is well known. School meals were introduced 120 years ago next year to ensure that children received at least one nutritious meal a day, so that they could function effectively.

Secondly, auto-enrolment would improve household incomes, and household income is positively correlated with educational outcomes. In fact, there is a double-digit improvement in performance at GCSE level between children in the lowest and second-lowest income deciles, and that improvement continues all the way up in decreasing amounts until we hit the third-highest decile, where for all the money spent on private schools, educational outcomes plateau across the top 30% of incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The Bill aims to make a meaningful and lasting difference to the lives of children across our country. We must come together to focus on the future of our young people, understanding that the way we invest in them today is how we shape our society of tomorrow. The Government have been clear in their commitment to address child poverty—I welcome that—and the work already being done through the ministerial taskforce, which is shaping a long-term strategy to bring about change. That commitment was also evident in the King’s Speech, which announced further investment in children’s wellbeing through the introduction of breakfast clubs, which I also welcome.

Financial support for the least well-off is another key element of our approach. As a former councillor, I know that the additional £1 billion allocated in the most recent Budget to the household support fund will allow local authorities to provide targeted help to those who need it most. We must always ensure that support for families is not just well intentioned but well delivered. That is why the Bill is so important. It removes unnecessary barriers, streamlining the process so that every eligible child is automatically registered for the help to which they are entitled. No family should have to navigate unnecessary bureaucracy or miss out due to a lack of awareness. At the same time, the Bill respects parental choice, which is incredibly important.

It is essential to recognise that the most effective way to reduce poverty and improve life chances is by focusing on long-term, sustainable economic growth. By fostering a strong economy we can boost household incomes and ensure that public services remain well funded and effective. The long-term vision must always be to create an environment where families can thrive, children can reach their full potential, and the cycle of poverty can be broken for good.

While we work towards that vision, it is important to continue implementing practical, well targeted measures, such as those in the Bill, that can bring about immediate improvements. The decisions we make today will shape the society we live in tomorrow.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Before I entered this place, I worked on poverty for the Child Poverty Action Group, Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty. Back in 2010, there was cross-party consensus that we should end child poverty. Gordon Brown referred to it as his guiding mission. Should we return to that time?

[Leigh Ingham]

I completely agree. Gordon Brown was a wonderful Prime Minister.

To conclude, the Bill represents a crucial step in our ongoing commitment to tackling child poverty.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

Mental Health Support: Educational Settings

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for it.

I know from experience that our mental health system is overstretched and under-resourced. In fact, there has never been so much demand for mental health support from children and young people. In June, the number of active CAMHS referrals in England was a record 840,000. It is clear that this Government inherited a crisis in children and young people’s mental health. We all want young people to be happy, healthy and safe, and to be equipped with everything that they need to achieve and thrive as adults. But with half of mental health issues developing by the time that young people reach the age of 14, and three quarters before the age of 24, early intervention in mental health support for children and young people is essential.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Last year, I met the parents of a young woman struggling with her mental health in my constituency. She was not in crisis, but she did need some additional support. Her school encouraged her parents to withdraw her because they could not provide the support, which her parents did because they did not know what else to do. That has left her out of education for over 18 months and severely in crisis. Does my hon. Friend agree that early intervention in schools is crucial for breaking down barriers?

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree, and I have many similar cases. I want to refer some real-life examples. There is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall this week about the Mental Health Act, which has been put together by Mind. It features artwork and written pieces by people who have been detained under the current Act. I had the pleasure of meeting some of them on Monday, including a young lady called Afeefa. Afeefa is 19 but was first detained under the Act when she was 14. She spoke powerfully and movingly about the treatment that she endured while she was under section. When I asked her if there was one thing that could have helped her, she said without hesitation that if she had received mental health support at an earlier stage, her experience would have been very different.

I recall two examples from my experience of working in mental health system that demonstrate the difference that early intervention and support can make. They are of two young people of similar age: one is a teenage boy, who unfortunately has not been able to access the support he needs and, as a result, is struggling to cope. That is not only impacting on his mental health but is having a detrimental impact on his family, especially his parents.

By contrast, in the second case, the parents of a teenage girl who had been diagnosed with a mental health condition knew that I worked in mental health at the time and came to see me. I was able to ensure that she was referred to CAMHS at an early stage. As a result, both she and her parents are doing well. She is due to sit her A-levels in the summer. These examples underline how children who receive support quickly are less likely to develop long-term conditions that negatively affect their education, social development and health later in life.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has been clear that children’s wellbeing will be a priority for this Government. Research from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy indicates that children whose mental health difficulties are initially too complex for lower intensity interventions, but not complex enough to be referred to higher intensity interventions such as CAMHS, can easily miss out on the mental health support that they need. Ensuring enough mental health support for children and young people in educational settings will help to free up NHS time and resources, while making sure that we have a healthy and productive population in the future.

We should also make sure that support exists in the community. Can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s plans for Young Futures hubs? Does he agree that open access drop-in hubs could be an important step in providing community-based mental health support for children and young people?

There is clear evidence that the places and circumstances in which people are born grow, study, live and work have a powerful influence on their mental health. As Place2Be has said, children and young people from low-income families are four times more likely to experience mental health problems than children from higher income families, while one in four children and young people with a diagnosed mental health condition live in a household that has experienced a reduction in household income. This is why I want reform of the way that we deal with mental health. From Westminster, I would like greater cross-Government working to address the social detriments of our mental health. At a local level, I believe that greater co-operation between schools, colleges and universities, along with local health providers and others in the local community, can help create education settings that are effective at protecting young people’s mental health and general wellbeing. Taking that long-term approach will help create a society that prevents mental ill health for children and young people in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I first want to say how incredible it is that Members are stood here in the Houses of Parliament discussing the mental health of our young people, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for bringing forward such a critical debate.

In a previous role on the health scrutiny committee for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, it was clear to me that young people are waiting too long for treatment, and that is having a long-term detrimental impact on them. That is in addition to the increasing number of young people on too-long CAMHS waiting lists. We also need to look at specialist services, such as for those suffering with disordered eating, which has doubled in just a couple of years. It is clear that we need to improve early intervention for our young people. We have to ensure that young people discuss mental health not only as part of the curriculum, but with their peers. We also need to ensure that young people reach out for support when they need it. Just as importantly, we need to listen to them and act when they do reach out—often, young people are ignored.

Our children and young adults have experienced a global pandemic. We cannot ignore this period in their lives and the impact it has had on some of them. I have two teenagers, so I have seen it at first hand. By increasing mental health support in educational settings, we know that we can provide the foundations that our young people will need for their future.

We are discussing something that cannot always be seen on the surface and that is often viewed as off-limits. I often think about a group of young people I visited in an alternative educational provision setting in Moira in my constituency. From speaking to them, I know how difficult and tough life has already been for them at such a young age, but I also feel empowered by them—they were amazing young people. They knew the support they had received when they needed it had turned their lives around.

For some, school can be six hours of relentless bullying, abuse or loneliness. Sixty per cent of our 11 to 16-year-olds told Girlguiding that they had received negative comments about their appearance from other people, some of which were in a school setting. Nearly half of seven to 10-year-olds say they feel alone some or all of the time—seven to 10 is so little. Too often when we have conversations about mental health support, we just talk about teenagers. Mental health support needs to be available for young people of every age to help them build healthy habits, to help them talk about what they need from us, and to set out where they can go for support.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

That is a salient point. Before I became an MP, I worked with young people in youth work. Increasingly over the last few years, mental health issues that we normally saw in teenagers were affecting younger and younger children. One reason was younger and younger children having access to social media and not having the breaks we would have had as young people. My hon. Friend’s point is valid—will she tell me more about that?

[Amanda Hack]

Absolutely. The sad fact is that we always talk about teenagers, but if we can give that resilience to children as young as seven to 10, we might be able to prevent them from becoming poorly when they get older. We have to start those conversations as early as possible to build resilience and confidence in our young people. Putting mental health support in educational settings will mean not only that we can change the culture in schools for children struggling with their mental health, but that we will be able to see how young people can be supported in the right place, at the right time and in the right setting.

Young Carers: Educational Opportunities

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered educational opportunities for young carers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members from across the House here today, and I thank them for attending. I know that some have personal stories to tell, and I look forward to hearing them.

As many hon. Members will be aware, yesterday was Young Carers Action Day. We have held a number of events in Parliament with the support of the Carers Trust. This week, young carers visited No. 10 and wrote directly to the Prime Minister to ask for his support in ensuring that young carers and young adult carers are the golden thread that goes through everything his Government do. Students from Mark Hall academy in Harlow visited Parliament, and the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) and I took part in an open-top bus trip around London, which went very well until we were unfortunately attacked by hail.

A recent report by the Carers Trust has identified a number of issues that young carers face in educational settings:

“Caring has a significant negative impact on education…Awareness, identification and recording of young carers in educational settings is still too low…Support for young carers in education is worryingly inconsistent.”

Here are a few statistics: almost half of young carers—48%—reported being bullied in the past year; more than two in five—44%—frequently struggle to study for tests or exams because of the demands of their caring situation; and almost a third of young carers are regularly late for school because of those demands. Almost one in four young carers say there is no support at all for young carers in their school, college or university.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is estimated that there are around 2,000 young carers in Staffordshire, many of whom are hesitant to come forward for fear of disrupting their home lives. For those flying under the radar, it is even harder to get proper support. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department for Education’s commitment to creating a more comprehensive register of young people will ensure that resources can be distributed more effectively, so that problem areas can be identified?

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for her useful and thoughtful intervention. She is absolutely right. One of the biggest issues for young carers is identifying them. First, young carers do not recognise themselves as being young carers. Secondly, as she rightly says, some young carers are worried about coming forward, as they feel that identifying themselves as young carers would somehow make it seem as though their parents are failing them, which is absolutely not the case.

I welcome the DFE’s commitment to better identifying young carers—it is great that young carers are now part of the school census—but we have to recognise that there is much more to do. In the most recent school census, 72% of schools said that they do not have any young carers, which cannot be right. Although we have made strides in this area, there is obviously much more we need to do. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.

As many hon. Members will be aware, since I mention it in most of my speeches, I spent the first 15 years of my working life as a secondary school maths teacher, teaching in various schools across Essex and working with students aged 11 to 18 with a variety of abilities. I have recalled to the House many times one parents’ evening in which a student of mine arrived with both his parents, who were severely physically disabled. To my shame—this is something I have carried with me— I had no idea, until that point, that he and his older sister were young carers.

Since then, I have worked to ensure that I am more knowledgeable about young carers and young adult carers. Before my election in July, I worked for a wonderful charity in Harlow and Essex called Action for Family Carers. It provides respite care and in-school support for children and young people who care for family members and loved ones with physical and mental disabilities.

Young carers and young adult carers play a hugely important role for their families and their communities, giving to the NHS in an invaluable way. We must recognise their impact in saving money for the NHS and in helping the economy, but too often, they do not get the recognition they deserve. There is an urgent need for better identification of young carers in the education system, as many do not even realise that they are young carers until it has already impacted their lives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) said. For them, it is just normal—caring for a family member or a loved one.

I have visited several schools in my Harlow constituency that do a great job of supporting young carers, and I pay special tribute to Mark Hall academy, which allowed me to meet and talk to its young carers club. I also pay tribute to Purford Green and Holy Cross primary schools for their great work in identifying young carers, and to the many other schools across Essex where I have previously worked.

Some, but not all, schools do great work to identify young carers and have a designated young carers lead. It is vital that all teachers have knowledge of young carers and young adult carers, so my first ask of the Minister is to make training on young carers a mandatory part of teacher training.

It is important that schools have a designated young carers lead. Having spoken to young carers in my previous job and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers, I know how much anxiety is caused by having to tell at least five different teachers why they are late or have not done their homework. One young carer recently told me that he feels embarrassed to tell people, and that he has to ask peers to keep the noise down in the school library because, for him, it is the only quiet place where he can get his studies done. He does not have that option at home.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O’Brien]

Even before we set up the levy, I always heard employers expressing concerns about the idea of a levy of any kind. In many instances, they would prefer just to keep their money and not spend it on skills at all. The fact that they were not spending on skills is the reason why we brought in a levy—it was quite a contentious thing, and quite a centrist thing in lots of ways.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in its recent paper on the Government’s proposals to change the levy, the danger, if we start to make these things too open-ended, is that we completely collapse the concept. It notes what happened with things before, such as Train to Gain, where what we end up with is pure dead-weight—we get zero additionality.

To reduce the idea to absurdity, if we were to say that employers can spend the apprenticeship levy on whatever they like, there is no point in having a levy, is there? That is because we would have just gone around in a circle. There is no point taking money off people and saying, “You can do whatever you want.” The whole point of containing that expenditure to apprenticeships was, as well as wanting to prioritise apprenticeships, to avoid the very real problems that the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out with previous schemes such as Train to Gain, where we ended up with huge amounts of dead-weight. It did not work, and the amount of money spent by employers on such things went down.

I am absolutely ready to hear criticisms of, and improvements to, the idea of the levy. In a moment, I will talk about some of the challenges that will be thrown up by the Government’s proposals to move large amounts of money out of apprenticeships through the reforms to the levy.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

On the shadow Minister’s previous point, I spoke to businesses in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, and one pointed out to me that 90 pieces of paperwork were required, with multiple contract stages, just to get, for example, a plumber apprentice to take part in any scheme. The college in my constituency, which is outstanding and has a 72% completion rate compared with the national average of 58%, is doing strong work, but the businesses, in particular the small and medium-sized enterprises, are saying that the apprenticeship levy does not work for them and has excluded them from skills development. I am interested to hear what the shadow Minister has to say about that.

[Neil O’Brien]

As I said, I am absolutely ready to hear detailed thoughts and to have the detailed discussion about how one improves all these different things, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady’s local college seems to be highly successful in delivering these things. Every year, on average, twice as many people started apprenticeships under the last Government as started them under the previous Labour Government, so we did get a lot more of them, as well as higher quality. I do not know what the 90 bits of paper are, but I am absolutely ready to hear and to talk about ways we could improve those matters.

On the point about SMEs that the hon. Lady raised, that is exactly why last March we moved to 100% funding for SMEs—to make things easier for them. I agree with the hon. Lady: there is a lot to do to make it easier for SMEs to participate in the levy-led system. I am just not convinced that any of the concerns she raises will be addressed by shutting down IfATE or setting up Skills England. She might hope that they will be—I hope that they will be—but I do not see anything in this legislation that will fix any of the problems that she complains about. Obviously, we hope that collectively we will solve the problems in the system.

There are quite a lot of concerns—including concerns among those on the Labour Benches, which I will come on to—about the transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State compromising the independence with which apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications, such as T-levels, are accredited, and diluting the voice of employers. As numerous people have pointed out, we would not and do not accept that on the academic side, where we have both independent exam boards and Ofqual creating and monitoring specifications and exams. This is yet another example of our treating the academic side—the route that most of us went down—differently from the technical side. As the Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out:

“The problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels like the second half is missing. The second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body…Being subsumed within a division of the Department for Education…is problematic. The Minister needs to reflect on it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC87.]

As another Labour peer, Baroness Blower, pointed out,

“the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC90.]

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said that giving Skills England legislative backing

“would…cement the body’s independence.”

In contrast, the Bill originally introduced by the Government did not even include the words “Skills England”. The very act of a further reorganisation, even if one thinks it is a good idea, is likely to further compound the effects of the Budget and the decision to move apprenticeships money to other things. I will just rehearse that for a moment. Obviously, the Budget saw a £40 billion overall tax increase and the largest part of that is a £25 billion increase in national insurance, which is squarely targeted on part-time and lower-income workers. It hits exactly the tier of the workforce that is typically the apprenticeship kind of tier. Of course, apprenticeships do not require payment of national insurance, but when we see lots of employers, as we do now, shedding jobs in that tier, that is inevitably bad for the number of apprenticeships.

That is compounded by what the Government want to do in terms of taking money out of apprenticeships. There has been some confusion about that, because safely before the election, Labour in opposition had the idea that it was going to let employers take 50% of the money from the levy and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Then, as the election drew nearer, that idea seemed to disappear and did not feature any more. Lots of people assumed that it was gone. Then I assumed it was definitely gone, because I asked the current Minister—whom we have here today—in Westminster Hall whether the 50% target still stood, and the Minister said that the policy was under review. Then a couple of weeks later, in oral questions, when we asked the Secretary of State whether the 50% target still stood, she said that it did, even though lots of people in industry think that that is not the plan.

This whole question about how much of the money will be taken out of apprenticeships and put elsewhere is shrouded in confusion. I would love it—I would be delighted—if the Minister could talk about that point today and tell us whether it is still 50%. It is a binary thing: it either is 50% or is not. I would love the Minister to tell us the answer one way or another. At the moment, the levy raises about £2 billion a year. If the Government take 50% of that money out, they might think that is a good thing. They might say, “Yes, we want employers to be able to spend a billion quid on other stuff.” But if they take all that money out of apprenticeships, one thing they will definitely have is fewer apprenticeships. They could say it is fine—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Sure. A shadow form exists at the moment, but that does not change the longer-term point that if we do not give it its own legislative basis and make it independent of the Department, all the criticisms and concerns about the dilution of the employer voice and so on still stand. I am not having a go at those who are setting up Skills England.

[Leigh Ingham]

On the point about independence, the chair has been announced as Phil Smith, the former CEO of Cisco. Surely that in itself is a sign of significant independence.

[Neil O’Brien]

A fantastic person—all good. It is like having NEDs—non-executive directors—in a Department; it is good to have external people. As I noted, however, the CEO of the organisation is literally not a civil servant; it is a job-share civil servant. They are people who currently work in the Department doing post-16 skills, so I am not sure about idea that this is an independent body. Can the hon. Lady tell me where Skills England is based? Physically, where is it located? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Is it in Sanctuary Buildings, by any chance? Sanctuary Buildings is none other than the headquarters of the DFE. Is this, in fact a desk in an open plan office that is part of the DFE?

The Government can bring in good people. It is good to bring in good people. The DFE has some good NEDs, by the way, but that is not the same as having an independent institution. That is why Lord Blunkett and other Labour peers are warning that the Government are making a mistake. Those are their words, not ours. Lord Blunkett has a lot more experience of those things than me.

All I would say to the Minister and to hon. Members on the Government Benches is, instead of overturning what peers have put into the Bill, this might be one of those times when it is more sensible to listen to people on their own side, people with some serious grey hairs and a lot of experience, people in their own party, who are advising them that they are making a mistake here. Instead of overturning what they have done, the Government should allow it to stand. The criticisms being made by people in the industry and people with experience in education and skills are serious. I hope that the Government will listen to them, rather than simply overturning what they have done and ignoring them.

SEND Education Support

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND education support.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful for having secured this important debate, and welcome the opportunity to discuss special educational needs and disabilities support, especially how it is failing and how it can be improved. I am pleased too that so many Members are present to contribute. I have no doubt that those MPs who, like me, are new to this House will have been blown away by the scale of the SEND crisis in their constituencies. Parents are quite literally crying out for help, and we must listen to them and act.

In this debate we will hear about the national crisis, as well as the many local failures experienced right across the country, and the devastating human impacts that the crisis is having on young people and their families. But while I have the Minister’s attention, and before I get into the detail, I want to set out two important points. First, tackling our nation’s SEND crisis must be a national priority—much like rebuilding our NHS or tackling the housing crisis. We must be determined to rebuild our SEND support as a nation, and build a system that works for our children. Sitting alongside that, we must plan for the sustainable funding of the SEND system.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

SEND children are falling through the cracks. I have been told by a school in my constituency that it is experiencing a crisis, and is self-funding its own education, health and care needs assessments. As a result, it is facing an incredible deficit in funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial for the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to work together to deliver EHC assessments to ensure that our schools do not end up in unsustainable financial positions?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I agree, and I will talk about those points later in my speech.

Secondly, I will highlight the severe challenges for SEND that are faced in rural areas, such as my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. I am keen that the Minister visits my rural constituency to see, up close and at first hand, how rural education and the rural SEND crisis differs from that of our urban neighbours.

Let me start today’s debate by setting out the scale of the SEND crisis. As the recent report from the National Audit Office highlighted, the crisis is severe and growing. There has been a 140% increase in children with education, health and care plans—or an equivalent statement of SEND needs—from 2015 to 2024. The total number of children and young people with SEND today is estimated to be 1.9 million. Despite that growth in demand, the NAO has raised real concerns that there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for children and young people with SEND since 2019. Without drastic action, a full belt-and-braces review of SEND and a real determination to see improvements, we will only see SEND provision get even worse.

Funding is one part of the problem. With growing demand we need a sustainable funding plan—one that is able to tackle, and grow with, that demand—but, much like the issues facing our NHS, the answer does not lie just in funding. We need a belt-and-braces review that seeks to get to the heart of the challenges and build provision around current and future needs. I would like to see a national conversation about SEND, bringing in the voices of parents and young people and giving them the opportunity to share their experiences. Far too many families and young people have felt marginalised, silenced and kicked to the sidelines when they have battled hard to get the support their children are entitled to.

Apprenticeships

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the value of apprenticeships and National Apprenticeships Week.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is my first debate of this nature. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for granting me the time for this important topic. I declare an interest ahead of this debate: I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. I also declare that skills and apprenticeships are my political passion in this House.

We are about to celebrate National Apprenticeships Week, which runs next week. It is right that we celebrate the success of more than 750,000 apprenticeships that are powering skills and productivity in our local economies. I have had the privilege of meeting and visiting more than 100 businesses and their apprentices since I was elected. The breadth, talent and determination have been humbling, from butchers’ apprentices in Newborough and engineering students at Caterpillar in my constituency, to construction apprentices at Laing O’Rourke building a new Olympia, to, most recently, brilliant and creative learners at the Fashion Retail Academy. One of the most inspiring days I have spent as an MP was meeting learners and employers at the National Theatre to understand more about how we support apprenticeships in the creative arts.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. The creative industries have been identified as a growth-driving sector, and I know the Government recognise the impact of the arts on the wider economy. We must build more talent pipelines and widen the accessibility of careers in the arts for the longevity of the sector. In my role as co-chair of the APPG for theatre, I have looked at the critical skill shortages that the sector faces in technical, backstage roles, from lighting to sound clinicians and wigs, hair and makeup. That is why it is crucial for Skills England to review the seasonality of theatre work and explore the development of shorter-term apprenticeships to widen access to those entry-level roles.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. Was there a question?

[Leigh Ingham]

Sorry; does my hon. Friend agree?

[Andrew Pakes]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. As we have discussed previously, we both want to make sure that jobs in theatre, the arts and creative industries are open to young people in our constituencies and across the country.

We were the first country to pass a national apprenticeship Act when the Tudor Parliament enacted the Statute of Artificers in 1563. It is mind-boggling to think how much our society and economy have changed since then. What has not changed is the timeless requirement of educating the next generation, and ensuring that novices in the jobs market are set forth in the working world with all the pride and self-reliance of mastering a new occupation, profession or skill.

Over the past few years, there have been various reports into the status, scale and success of apprenticeships. It is clear that the system is not working as it should be. In my view, it is a national disgrace that the number of apprenticeships fell under the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s debate and its focus on apprenticeships, which is so important.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) suggested earlier, apprenticeships and the narratives around them have changed a lot in recent years. When I was younger, apprenticeships were seen as something that working-class kids did. They were not considered academic or necessarily broad. They were in traditional trades, such as hairdressing, plumbing, building or being an electrician. Actually, my dad did one, completing the training to be a bricklayer.

However, the situation is quite different now. People can do an apprenticeship in anything, from computer science to law to being a chef or a pilot. They are not just for people fresh out of college or high school. Many apprentices in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages are older than 25 and the majority of the apprenticeships undertaken are advanced qualifications.

Our policies must reflect those shifts, which is why I welcome Skills England’s work in driving forward national skills development and transforming opportunities for young people and those switching careers.

Apprenticeships do not just provide education, but are a powerful tool for economic growth, as many hon. Members have said, particularly in towns. I regularly meet representatives of Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, the outstanding college in my constituency, which collaborates with more than 700 employers from small businesses to multinational corporations. Its success in securing apprenticeships highlights the vital role that apprenticeships play in bridging skills gaps and strengthening our workforce.

I am also glad that Skills England is committed to working across industry with employees and other key organisations to refine its assessments of the UK’s skills needs. We must be laser focused on skills shortages, particularly in SMEs, while ensuring that apprenticeships work for businesses and the people taking them. I believe Skills England’s review will hold the answers we need. I look forward to the Minister telling us where the Government are with that and the timeline for that process.

Education, Health and Care Plans

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The last Conservative Education Secretary described SEND as a “lose, lose, lose” situation and, under the previous Government, she was right. I have a case in Stafford, now my constituency, where two parents are moving house to a different area with their two children who have additional needs. One child has an EHCP and the other is in a mainstream school. For their child with an EHCP, they are being told that, although they are moving from Stafford to Cheshire, they will have to retain a place in their current school, which is around an hours’ drive each way. The other child, who attends a mainstream school, has had her pick of schools, has chosen where she would like to go, and is looking forward to her future. The child with an EHCP has been left in limbo.

The difference in experience for those children is night and day and the stress it has caused their parents is completely unnecessary. That is precisely why we need to change the way that EHCPs are handled. This Government cannot undo the last 14 years of disruption to our SEND system in six months, but the investment we have seen recently is incredibly welcome, and I look forward to the Minister telling us more about that.

Higher Education: Staffordshire

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In previous years she has worked and lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, so she understands the power and importance that the issue has for a wider north Staffordshire family.

I was talking about the excellent Newcastle college, which is further education rather than higher education, but it is important because it is from there that our wonderful institutions at Staffordshire and Keele get their young people. I was there last Friday, presenting the student of the month awards and meeting young people who look forward to staying in Staffordshire for university.

Let us focus on students for a minute. In 2022-23, 34,535 students enrolled for a degree at a higher education provider in Staffordshire. These are young people to whom we will be looking for leadership and inspiration in the years ahead. Following our departure from the European Union, the proportion of EU students in Staffordshire has decreased, while the proportion of overseas students has more than tripled, from 2.3% to 7.8%. That speaks to the challenges facing the sector not just in Staffordshire but right across Great Britain.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend has made clear, the higher education sector is incredibly important to the skills and education landscape of Staffordshire. Sadly, Stafford itself lost its university campus a few years ago, although there is one just across the border. The thing that higher education also does is provide opportunities for research, development and sector-leading expertise. However, there are considerable issues in this space, to which my hon. Friend has just alluded. Only this week I have been on the phone to a constituent, a Unison member, who works at the University of Staffordshire. They told me that they are currently experiencing their third restructure in three years. Does he agree that working in such an insecure environment provides little benefit to staff or students?

[Adam Jogee]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for such an important point. Stability, certainty and structure are what we all want in our lives. I expect that is why our party received such a mandate from the people. But on a serious note, making sure that our higher education institutions have that stability and focus will benefit all of us.

In Staffordshire, students of black African ethnicity have, at 81%, the highest progression rate to higher education. Progression rates for students eligible for free school meals have increased in Staffordshire over the past 10 years, from 13.3% in 2011-12 to 19.3% in 2021-22.

In 2021-22, students with special educational needs in Staffordshire were also much less likely to progress to higher education than those with no identified special educational needs. Both those figures were lower than the national average and, in my view, speak to the need to get a grip of SEND provision in Staffordshire and across England. The system is broken and it is leaving our young people and their families behind.

During the election, I met many of the young people who studied at Keele. I mention Molly, Martha, Olly and Bayley, who were just a few of the young people who had the wisdom both to study at Keele and to help on my campaign. From all my visits and meetings with the students, it was clear just how much they had made a home in north Staffordshire, and that is something we all want to hold on to.