School Funding: Stockport

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered school funding in Stockport.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I start by declaring an interest: I am in my 20th year of being an unpaid primary school governor. I am currently at the wonderful Fairway primary school in Offerton.

I am sure that we all agree that being an MP is a real privilege, and one of the best things that we get to do in this job is spend time in schools. Young people get to the nub of issues. They have very little filter, and they always leave me feeling much more positive about the future of our country. However, the school visits that I have made since being elected have included conversations with headteachers who—while they are doing remarkable things for their pupils and their school communities—are having to explain which posts they cannot fill, which support they have had to cut and which requests from parents they have had to turn down because the money is just not there.

The chief executive of the Honeycomb education trust, which includes Mellor primary school in my patch, told me that he had recently been left with three choices: lose three or four members of staff, lose a headteacher or take early retirement himself. He chose retirement. That is what the funding position is doing to experienced and celebrated school leaders such as Jim in my constituency.

Schools across Stockport are expected to provide the same educational experience for students as the rest of the country. Yet schools in my constituency and across the borough are funded at disproportionately lower levels per pupil compared with other places, including neighbouring Manchester. That is the case for much of the rest of the country.

Funding for our education system can be complex. Education has two core funding streams: the education cash limit budget, which comes through the council, and the dedicated schools grant, which is the core funding provided by central Government through the Department for Education for education purposes. That budget reaches schools mainly according to the number of pupils that are enrolled. Other considerations are also taken into account, including deprivation, number of children on free school meals, number of children with English as an additional language and low prior attainment.

The rate attached to each child, and the number of children in the school, decides almost everything about a school’s budget. The primary schools’ unit of funding in Manchester is £6,404. In neighbouring Stockport, it is £5,623. It does not cost almost £800 more to educate a child in Manchester than it does in Stockport, and it is hard to justify that big gap.

At secondary schools, the funding in Manchester averages £8,452. Stockport receives £7,320. That is a gap of £1,100 for every pupil and is £350 less than the national average. We are not just a little bit below the average in Stockport. Among all the authorities in England, Stockport’s secondary rate is one of the lowest in the country. At the top of the table are the inner London boroughs, some of which receive over £10,000 per pupil. The distance between the top of that table and those areas near the bottom is hard to defend.

Those differences in funding are having a dire effect in Stockport. I have been told that 68 of the 78 schools in Stockport are heading for a deficit, and that school reserves have fallen from £11 million to around £5 million. The schools that are attempting to remain financially resilient are joining multi-academy trusts based outside Stockport, and others are being pushed towards mergers.

When speaking to Jim from the Honeycomb education trust, he laid out the additional burdens that school leaders are facing in addition to limited funding. Those include the removal of the trust capacity fund, national insurance contributions that were not fully funded, long-term staff sickness absence and a growing number of children with special educational needs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. On special educational needs in particular, it is a very similar story in Northern Ireland where there has been historical underfunding. Does she share my concern about how some of the press are carrying stories about the number of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? They are almost suggesting that the ADHD numbers are not correct. In my constituency, I can see clearly that the number of people with ADHD is rising. I have six grandchildren, and three have some educational challenges. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the ADHD figures are rising and are correct?

[Lisa Smart]

I, too, have family members with ADHD diagnoses. We as a society have got much better at understanding neurodiversity. We understand the strengths of those who are neurodiverse and how best to educate and work with them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a better understanding of our fellow citizens is a good thing, and if that comes with a diagnosis, let us welcome that.

Councils receive a high-needs budget to pay for specialist places and extra support in mainstream schools. In Stockport, that came to just over £56 million this year, with more than 1,100 students holding high-needs places last year. That brings me to the deficit on the high-needs budget, which hangs over councils across England, and which Stockport knows well.

By March 2027, the cumulative deficit on Stockport’s dedicated schools grant is expected to reach about £68 million. Because of the statutory override, that sum sits in an unusable reserve, rather than on the council’s balance sheet, where it could be put to better use. The Government have said that, as part of their wider reforms to special educational needs provision, they will write off 90% of the accrued deficit at March 2027. For Stockport, that is an estimated £61 million, so of course I welcome that. It is the right thing to do, and councils have been asking for it for years. However, the override is due to end in March 2028, with a new funding model due to begin in April 2028. In between, Stockport expects to build up a further deficit of about £60 million across 2026-27 and 2027-28. The Government have said that more support will be confirmed, but that puts councils and schools in a difficult position, as they have to set budgets without knowing whether a sum almost as large as the first write-off will be covered. Schools and councils want to work with a clear understanding of what they should expect.

The council and families across the borough deserve better than that uncertainty. Parents of children with special educational needs should be provided with the certainty that school places will be available to them and that they do not have to worry about whether they will be funded. They should not be told that it depends on a funding model that is yet to be published. I would be really grateful if the Minister can update us on when schools should expect publication of the new funding model.

Funding disparities can disproportionately affect students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Stockport is one of the most polarised boroughs in the country. We have communities that are among the most affluent in the region, and we also have the most deprived ward in the whole of Greater Manchester. Children in that ward start school with disadvantages that, on average, will never pick up. A funding system that sees only the prosperous areas of a borough and sets the rate to match lets down those children. That is why Stockport is a founder member of the f40 group—the campaign of the lowest-funded local authorities—which has pressed for years for a fairer distribution of education funding. The case has not changed. The gaps mean that an average one-form-entry primary school in Stockport receives about £164,000 less each year than it would if it were based in Manchester. Headteachers in my constituency cannot simply absorb such a gap.

The pressure is not only on budgets. In Marple and the surrounding villages, families living in the catchment area of Marple Hall school find that their children are not offered a place because the school is oversubscribed.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a really strong statement about the schools in her patch and in wider Stockport. The oversubscription of schools impacts Cheadle too. Schools such as Woodford primary school have been oversubscribed for some time. Does she think that if we crack the funding issue and make funding fairer, that would help the admissions system and give parents the peace of mind that they can choose the school that is best for their kid?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for raising that point. There are a number of challenges when it comes to admissions, and funding is part of the answer. Multi-academy trusts, which are their own admission authority, work alongside local councils, which have the responsibility to find a place for a child, but their wishes and desires do not always align. I am doing work—I have been in correspondence with the Minister—to find a way through that. Every child deserves a brilliant education at a good local school, and parents should be able to choose the right school for their child, so I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.

I have heard directly from parents about the effect on them of their children having to get a bus that drives past Marple Hall to get to the school where they have been assigned a place. School funding challenges are also reaching organisations that work alongside our schools. One of my constituents, David from Romiley, runs a social enterprise with his wife that delivers educational activities in primary schools. He came to see me because of the Government’s decision to end the PE and sport premium. He is now expecting to have to make redundancies among his staff.

Will the Minister look again at how the national funding formula treats areas such as Stockport? A system that locks in historical allocations and averages out pockets of real deprivation does not match funding to need. Will the Department review the way the formula is built and, if so, set out a timetable for doing so? Will the Minister confirm what support will be available for the deficits that build up in 2026-27 and 2027-28 before the override ends? Councils need certainty now, not in the spring. Will she commit to publishing those figures in good time?

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate. This is a very important issue. The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and I, although we are from two different political parties, work well together on issues like this. Does she recognise that Stockport council has had £2 million in the inclusive mainstream fund allocation under this Government? The council has also had just over £2 million for the Experts at Hand programme. Does she share my frustration that Stockport council has met the 20-week deadline for only 18% of education, health and care plans, in comparison with the English average, which is said to be 50%?

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that more funding coming to our borough is absolutely welcome, and he is completely right that the three of us, although we are not always ideologically aligned, work well when it comes to the shared ambitions for our borough. I strongly agree with him on that. I also agree that EHCP turnaround and the service that parents and families have been getting in Stockport have not been good enough. The three of us have raised that with the council, which has a clear aspiration and duty for it to improve. I also agree that some of the funding discrepancies are historical, and we need to work to fix them. The children who are going through our education service deserve better.

Additionally, when will the detail of the new special educational needs funding model, which is due to take effect from April ’28, be published? Will the Department consult councils and schools before it is finalised?

The children of Stockport are as bright, hard-working and deserving as any in the country. They should not be funded as though they are worth a little bit less, or indeed £800 less, than children in a neighbouring borough. I urge the Minister to look again at how we fund our schools, give councils certainty about special educational needs funding before the override ends and give the children of Stockport the fair deal they deserve.

Antisemitism: University Campuses

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate and setting us up very strongly with his excellent opening remarks.

Antisemitism has no place in our society. That should be a simple statement, and it should be agreed by all in this House. The Liberal Democrats have continued to be clear that we must be committed to tackling hatred in all its forms. My constituents care about this issue and they raise it with me. They are worried about the rise of antisemitism in our country. I am grateful to my constituent Caroline from Marple, who came to my advice surgery just this Saturday to share her thoughts about the worrying rise she sees across our country.

Even though most believe that antisemitism has no place in the UK, there is evidence that for far too many Jewish students, the university campuses where they should feel free to learn and build friendships have instead become places of fear. The “Time for Change” report from the National Union of Students shows that almost a quarter of Jewish students have witnessed behaviour that targets them for their religion or ethnicity.

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

I am proud that my constituency has the largest population of Jewish students in the country. I was a Jewish student at the University of Leeds, as were my parents. We have had a Hillel house for over 70 years. It provides kosher accommodation for five young, vulnerable, isolated students on the edge of the campus. In early 2024, there was a graffiti attack on that Hillel house. It was absolutely unjustified, and it created a culture of fear on campus that has taken us years to correct. Does the hon. Member agree that it is absolutely unacceptable to have any form of graffiti or any type of harassment or intimidation on our campuses?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that incident. He will not be surprised to hear that I strongly agree that it is wholly unacceptable and entirely abhorrent. It is a well-trodden path that those who seek to divide us and sow hatred in our community use graffiti, which is a cowardly way to convey a message of hatred and divisiveness.

When I was in Bournemouth last year, I felt honoured to be invited to visit the synagogue and its rabbi who had been the subject of an antisemitic graffiti attack on his home. The impact that had on him and the whole community was profound, and I am grateful that he took the time to explain it to me. I can only imagine the fear that must have been felt by those who were targeted. The hon. Member is entirely right that it is wholly unacceptable.

The report I mentioned earlier showed that one in five students would be reluctant to, or would never, house-share with a Jewish student—others have mentioned that. In the report, Jewish students described physical and verbal abuse, social exclusion and antisemitic attitudes that have become disturbingly ordinary on the very campuses that are meant to welcome them. Additionally, almost half of students have heard slogans or chants glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other proscribed groups.

I am grateful to the colleagues who have brought the voices of students into Westminster Hall. The hon. Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the experience of Jewish students on campus, while the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) powerfully reminded us of why we should care about what is happening on university campuses. We have seen, throughout history, what this looks like. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the experience on German university campuses. My grandmother, who was Jewish, came here from Germany in the 1930s at the age of 18—not as a student, but as a domestic worker—because of the climate in which fear and hatred were being sown. As the hon. Member rightly said, it often starts on university campuses.

The Liberal Democrats will always defend free speech. Universities should be home to rigorous and well-informed debate, because the freedom to question and explore difficult ideas sits at the heart of academic life. Criticising the actions of any Government, including the Government of Israel, is legitimate and must remain so, but there is a world of difference between vigorous debate and the harassment, intimidation and abuse documented in the report that I mentioned.

It is possible, of course—I will say it again—to fairly and rightly criticise the actions of the Government of Israel, but let us be clear: the dangerous antisemitic trope that suggests that British Jewish people are somehow puppets for a foreign state, or that there is a secret conspiracy to exercise undue control over the Government, must be actively called out. We should robustly and unequivocally reject any such antisemitic conspiracy theories. No one should use concerns, whether about foreign interference or otherwise, to stir up hate or to smear and stigmatise the Jewish community on university campuses or elsewhere. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for reminding us of our role in positions of political leadership. Some of our colleagues would do well to remember that their inflammatory statements have an impact.

Under the previous Government, the Liberal Democrats did not support the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We did not believe that it was evidence- based or proportionate, and many universities and student groups, including Jewish student groups, warned that it risked compelling universities to give a platform to speakers with known extremist views. From September, the Office for Students will operate a new complaints scheme that will allow university staff, external speakers and non-student members to make free-speech complaints. The OfS will then investigate claims, and has the power to issue fines. The scheme should not be a mechanism for the back-door legitimisation of hate.

More than that, we believe that the Government should bring forward an urgent comprehensive action plan to tackle antisemitism at its root and ensure adequate high-visibility police protection for synagogues, schools and Jewish community centres nationwide. The “Time for Change” report sets out a sensible path and enforceable standards for universities to investigate and punish hate crime, with mandatory reporting to the Office for Students and real sanctions for those who fall short; proper co-ordination between universities, the police and the Government; and sector-wide best practice on Jewish inclusion, including antisemitism awareness training. Other colleagues have mentioned the excellent work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust. I have been lucky enough to benefit from some of its training, which was very strong. We should also welcome initiatives that celebrate Jewish life, not merely defend it.

I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who reminded us of the story of the Windermere children. He spoke about how the country could use education to build on our history and foundations, and about how we should push for a hatred of hatred—I warmly welcome that. Universities exist so that students from every background can come together without fear. Right now, that promise is being broken for too many Jewish students. The Liberal Democrats will keep using our voice in this House to speak out against antisemitism in every form. I ask the Government and the Minister to match their words with action and a timeline, to offer Jewish students not just warm assurances but the safety, protection and respect that they are owed.

Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support and engagement on this important topic. He is of course right: abuse is never acceptable, wherever we find it, and this is a really important piece of legislation to make that completely clear. To be clear, LGBT people are subject to that abuse at the moment because we have not legislated in this area, and legislate we must.

Let me turn to my hon. Friend’s question about the devolved Administrations. We are going into the process of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I hope very much that conversations with the devolved Administrations will be very productive in that period. We look forward to working with whoever wants to work with us to make this legislation a reality.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I really welcome the Minister’s statement today and the introduction of this draft legislation, and I look forward to writing to constituents who have been in touch with me to express their disappointment that conversion practices are still legal. In particular, I will mention Isabelle from Offerton, who is the most recent constituent to write to me about this matter. The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the carve-out for health professionals and how to mitigate the risk that somebody, under the guise of being a health professional, might set up a mental health charity in an attempt to circumvent the aims of the Bill. Will she say a little more about that?

[Olivia Bailey]

That is a really important question. Let me explain how this will work. It is my view that legitimate healthcare would not fall under the remit of this Bill in any way, shape or form, because legitimate healthcare would never be abusing somebody to try to change their identity and causing them serious harm. However, I recognise the concerns about the risk of a chilling effect. We do not want that, because good therapy and good conversation is really important. That is why we have put this exemption on the face of the Bill.

I am clear that if somebody falls below the standards expected of them in a healthcare profession, they will fall under this Bill. That would prevent the example that the hon. Lady outlines, in which somebody pretends to be a healthcare professional in order to perform an abusive conversion practice. I am confident that there is no loophole here, but that is a clear statement that healthcare professionals can continue to do their important work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I welcome and celebrate the launch of the Southampton literary festival by Bitterne Park school, and I thank my hon. Friend for all his advocacy in his constituency. The National Year of Reading is packed full of exciting events for all to participate in, and I encourage Members to do so.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The children of Banks Lane junior school recently visited the parliamentary education establishment, and kindly invited me along. They were fizzing with enthusiasm and excitement for their learning. We know that attitudes to money are embedded at a really young age, so it is welcome that financial education is included in the curriculum and assessment review. We also know that 80% of teachers are reporting heavy workloads. What additional funding and training is coming in to ensure that children get what they need?

Village Schools

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Georgia Gould]

The national funding formula accounts for the challenges faced by small schools in rural areas, both through the lump sum and through the sparsity factor. In 2025-26, primary schools eligible for sparsity funding attract up to £57,400, and all other schools eligible for sparsity funding attract up to £83,400. However, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the particular circumstances he raises, I will be very happy to look into them.

Today’s discussion has focused on the future of Great Alne primary school, a small rural school located on the edge of Great Alne, a village in Warwickshire. As I think the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon pointed out, it has been at the heart of the village for over 180 years, educating generations of families. It is known for its small class sizes and close-knit environment and offers a setting in which pupils receive individual attention. Its ethos, “responsible, respectful, ready”, reflects a commitment to nurturing well-rounded learners and positive values.

We believe that decisions about school closures always need careful reflection. They affect pupils, families and communities deeply. As part of this Government’s commitment to supporting every child to achieve and thrive, we want to ensure that every child has access to high-quality education in a sustainable setting. Great Alne primary school serves children aged between four and 11. It has an operational capacity of 105 places, but currently only 21 pupils are on roll, so just 20% of the available places are being used.

The Department has set out guidance to local authorities to support them in carefully considering whether school closure is appropriate. The local authority considers that it has followed the guidance and has actively sought to keep the school open. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon knows, the local authority has now progressed to the stage of consulting stakeholders on potential closure proposals.

Local authorities must ensure sufficient school places and manage the school estate efficiently. When school capacity data shows limited capacity in the immediate area for some year groups, the local authority has confirmed that spaces are available in neighbouring areas for any displaced pupils.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

In my Hazel Grove constituency, the most rural area is Mellor. We have children from primary schools looking to go to Marple Hall, which is their nearest secondary school. Marple Hall has recently joined an academy trust, and of course different rules about admissions come with that. It is causing parents a lot of consternation about the future admissions policy. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on any plans that she and her colleagues have to look at how academies can set their admissions policy to ensure that all local children get a good local secondary place of their choosing.

[Georgia Gould]

As the hon. Member will be aware, local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that all children have a sufficient place. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is progressing through the House of Lords, has some changes around admissions that we think will ensure that children get a place at a school that meets their needs.

The Department for Education recognises the importance of supporting rural schools and the educational offer in Warwickshire. We have worked in partnership with Warwickshire local authorities since Ofsted published an inspection report of “inadequate” in January 2023. Local authorities hold the statutory place-planning function, ensuring that there are sufficient schools to meet pupil needs. This includes collaborating with academy trusts and partners to balance supply and demand in line with changing demographics.

Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I am pleased that the parental leave and pay review is looking at these issues as part of its work, and I encourage Members to engage with the review as it continues.

The Department for Education’s statutory guidance is clear that where self-employed adopters do not qualify for any statutory payment, local authorities can consider making a payment that is equivalent to the maternity allowance.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The Minister mentioned the review and said that it is under way. He did not mention how long it will take, and I note that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) asked for some guidance on the timeline. I would be grateful if he could give that and, further, if he could use his good offices to encourage local authorities to let potential self-employed adopters know that their discretionary funds exist because, as the hon. Lady mentioned, most do not.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the hon. Member for those questions. I will directly answer the questions that the hon. Member for South West Devon asked in a moment, but I take the broader point about encouraging local authorities to ensure that adopters in their area are aware of the support available to them.

As I was saying, local authorities can consider making a payment that is equivalent to the maternity allowance. That allows authorities to target adopters most in need of financial support, though I take the hon. Member’s point—a point powerfully made—on the inconsistency of that offer across England at the moment.

To answer the hon. Member’s questions directly, first, the parental leave review started in July and is expected to last 18 months, so we should be able to work back from there on when we expect its conclusions and publication. The review has a wide scope, but specific work on adoption support is firmly within that scope.

Finally, I turn to broader adoption support, which the hon. Member also asked me about. The Department for Education does make wider support available for all adoptive families. This year, £50 million was made available to support adopters and adoptive families through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. I appreciate that the changes we made to the ASGSF in April have been very difficult for some families, and I have listened carefully to what families have told me about those changes. I speak regularly with adopters and those working in the adoption system. We will start a formal process of engagement on long-term decisions in the new year. Details of the ASGSF from April 2026 will be made available once departmental business planning decisions are completed, and I expect that to be very soon.

So far this year, we have approved applications to support over 14,000 families through the fund. We have also invested £8.8 million this year into Adoption England for services across the country. Adoption England is doing a huge range of work to develop support for families through regional adoption agencies—for example, a new core offer of support for the first 12 to 18 months of a match between a child and a family.

Fundamentally, beyond adoption leave, the Government are taking bold steps to transform the entire children’s social care system. That is set out in our recently announced Families First Partnership programme. We have upped the funding to take it to £2.4 billion over the next three years. That change is fundamental to the whole system because it will reset the system—in a way that many Members across the House have for years argued for—away from late-stage crisis intervention and towards earlier, more intensive support for families, of all shapes and sizes, and that should be the bedrock of the future children’s social care system. In parallel, the investment and changes going into the NHS to ensure that health services can respond to the mental health needs of families and children—particularly the most vulnerable—will also act as a bedrock. We recognise, however, that adoptive families have special support needs.

I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for securing the debate and for her speech. I welcome her acknowledgment of the difference that adopters make across the country. I also welcome the attention of the parental pay and leave review to this area of work. I look forward to engaging in the new year with adopters and Members from across the House, as well as with stakeholders who work in the adoption system, including my Department’s adopter reference group, as we work to confirm the long-term arrangements for adoption support.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

17. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the adoption and special guardianship support fund.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

I appreciate the strength of feeling regarding the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Last month, I met campaigners, adopters and those running adoption services to discuss their views. This year, we have invested £50 million in the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and we have approved applications for nearly 14,000 children since April. I want to work with families and those delivering adoption support towards a positive and sustainable solution for the future.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House to a very powerful radio documentary, which I listened to last week. We do not have perfect data on this issue, but the data that we do have shows that cumulative adoption breakdowns have been at a rate of 4.8% over the past 12 years. I think that is too high, and it is the view of the Government that it is too high. We want to ensure that we get adoption support right for families, and I will go through a process of engagement with those who work in the sector and families affected to ensure that we can make improvements to it in the future.

[Lisa Smart]

I am an adoptive auntie, and I know the power that comes to young children when they are in a stable, loving family and the impact that that can have on their lives. One of my constituents from Romiley tells me that despite a likely diagnosis of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder for two of her three adopted children, their therapy funding will soon come to an abrupt end, and there is no clarity on whether it will be extended. The only way she can see for her family and for many others like them to achieve safety, security and certainty for their children is through that support. Will the Minister update the House on whether they plan to extend the adoption and special guardianship support fund? If so, will they consider making a multi-year funding guarantee to offer adoptive families and—let us face it—some of the country’s most vulnerable children greater certainty about future support?

[Josh MacAlister]

We want to ensure a sustainable, long-term future for adoption support in this country. I will set out plans in the near future that will hopefully address a number of the concerns that the hon. Member has mentioned. That sits on top of the really quite widespread changes and improvements we are making to children’s social care, with £2.4 billion of investment over the next three years to ensure that earlier family help is there for all families, regardless of their legal status, whether they are an adopter or a birth parent.

Early Years Providers: Government Support

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate and on her speech, much of which I really agreed with. High-quality early years education is the foundation of young people’s learning and makes an enormous difference to how they settle into primary school and to the rest of their time in formal education settings. There is so much evidence of the role of the first 1,000 days in the lives of all children.

I recently had a great time when I visited Brown Bear nursery and pre-school at Great Moor in my constituency. As well as having a really fun session creating art with some of the little learners, I spent time talking with the nursery’s highly experienced director, Wendy, about the impact of the ongoing challenges faced by nurseries across the UK. Staffing costs make up 70% of the nursery’s outgoings, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions has led to substantial staffing cost increases—and that is before taking into account the changes to business rates. Wendy described the cumulative impact as absolutely crippling. As a Liberal Democrat, I of course supported the calls for the Government to exempt early years education and care providers from the rise in employer national insurance contributions, the result of which has been, as expected, even more strain on nurseries like Brown Bear that are already under enormous pressure.

In 2019, Wendy helped to set up a network for private providers in Stockport, which has since been going from strength to strength. The Stockport private providers network now includes 63 day nurseries, 22 pre-schools, 220 childminders and eight independent nurseries. The early years sector is primarily led by women, and it is worth us all reflecting on the way our society looks at women-led sectors, whether that is early years, care or even the multibillion-pound hair and beauty industry. It is important that we look at how we value those sectors.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Does she have any thoughts on how we could attract more men to the industry?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. We spend a lot of time talking about the gender balance in various industries. My hon. Friend spent time in the armed forces, and I know that the armed forces think long and hard about how they recruit and retain women in particular. Men are often really under-represented in early years education, in care settings, and so on, and they would have so much to add, particularly for those children who do not have many male role models at home or in their families. I look forward to the Minister commenting on that hugely important point, because he is the one in Government and will, I am sure, have all the answers.

Anybody who has had to spend time caring for multiple toddlers will know the skill, diligence, energy and resilience needed to do the job well. It is right that we expect high standards from our early years providers. High-quality early years education is crucial for ensuring that children from any background can go on to achieve their potential. However, many nurseries across Stockport and, indeed, across the country will find it difficult to improve or even maintain their good and outstanding ratings as their finances continue to be squeezed.

[Sarah Dyke]

I think my hon. Friend is coming to an important point that I want to make, too. I recently met Acorn childcare in Somerton, another brilliant women-led nursery in my constituency. Staff there have told me over and over again that they are really struggling with the unsustainable costs and the funding model that is being implemented, plus the free entitlement that they now have to deal with. The spiralling costs are becoming uncontrollable. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must review the rates paid to providers to ensure that they cover the actual costs of delivering good-quality childcare?

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree that the funding model for early years and nurseries must be sustainable. We do not want to see the business model becoming no longer viable, so that these wonderful providers that give children the best start in life can no longer continue to exist.

There have been Government announcements on the provider agreement, and announcements about how any shortfall in funding can be met by only voluntary contributions. There have also been announcements about staffing ratios. My view—the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest laid out this point really well—is that such announcements do very little to support the quality of provision or staff retention.

For context, private providers across Stockport have told me that since 1999 they have experienced a 250% increase in wages, which is a good thing, but that is in comparison to a funding increase of only 83%. Those two things do not add up. Early years settings are having to deal with the increasingly complex situations that many children face at home, whether that is their special educational needs and disabilities or different situations. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest was absolutely right to take about far too many children living in poverty, which clearly has a knock-on impact on all education and early years settings. It is important that we restate our request that the Government look at the two-child benefit cap when they make decisions about future planning.

I am approaching my 20th year as a primary school governor, and I am acutely aware of the shared challenges and issues facing children and educators across all settings. If we want to see our young people thrive, the Government must commit to a sustainable funding model for early years care. They must also recognise the true cost of providing high-quality childcare, and not add more pressures to young parents already struggling with the cost of living. I ask the Government to recognise the increasing financial burden on parents, and to understand that proper funding for early years education is really an investment in our children’s and our society’s future.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call the Chair of the Education Select Committee.

Windrush Day 2025

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

There have been some incredibly powerful speeches this evening, and I feel really lucky to be participating in the debate. There is a lot to celebrate, but there is an awful lot to be really angry about as well.

We owe an enormous amount to the Caribbean and broader black-British community for their contributions to our society, not least the Windrush generation’s key role in building the NHS, and in my own region, the black-Caribbean community’s role in profoundly shaping Greater Manchester’s cultural landscape and social fabric. In 1966, Louise Da-Cocodia became Manchester’s first senior nursing officer, having come from Jamaica in 1955. Confronted with relentless racism in her role, she channelled her experiences into activism, becoming a key anti-racist campaigner, and her legacy continues through the organisations she helped to establish.

In 1980, Kath Locke, a pioneering mixed-race community activist, founded the Abasindi Co-operative, a black, women-led community organisation based in the Moss Side people’s centre. It offered essential services, including a drop-in centre for the elderly, a community health hub and a Saturday school to tackle educational underachievement and high youth unemployment.

In 1991, the NIA centre, now the Playhouse theatre in Hulme, opened as the first large-scale arts venue in Europe dedicated to African and Caribbean culture. Its inaugural event featured none other than the legendary Nina Simone. Today, the Chuck gallery in central Manchester continues that legacy by showcasing and celebrating Afro-Caribbean and African art. It works to foster greater understanding and appreciation of Caribbean artistic perspectives.

Here in the UK, far too many people’s lives are still blighted by prejudice, discrimination and inequality. Racism is still far too prevalent in our society. We all have a responsibility to recognise that reality, but also to recognise the role that we can play in challenging that injustice. I am proud that the Lib Dems are committed to fighting for racial equality, and that means unequivocally condemning racism in all its forms and tackling injustice wherever we see it.

In her opening, very powerful remarks, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) rightly laid out that the previous Government failed to deliver the justice that Windrush victims so deeply deserve. The Government dithered and delayed on implementing the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ lessons-learned review. Liberal Democrats will keep pushing the Government.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The Windrush generation made a huge contribution to the life and the economy of the UK, but I want to pay tribute to the Hong Kong community in my constituency of Wokingham and across the United Kingdom, who I am sure will make the same contribution to the UK. I am deeply concerned that the Government are piling uncertainty and worry on British Hongkongers through their reforms to indefinite leave to remain. These people, who are living here in Britain, already fear retribution from China. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should have their back and maintain the five-year pathway for British national overseas status holders?

[Lisa Smart]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the huge contribution of Hongkongers in his constituency. I have asked the Minister before about some of the changes the Government propose to the time period for indefinite leave to remain. The Minister has answered that a consultation is under way, and I am sure that she will talk about that in her closing remarks. I feel that we need to value the contribution made by those who are new arrivals in our country, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.

The Liberal Democrats will keep pushing the Government to right the wrongs forced on to the Windrush generation, including by urgently implementing the lessons-learned review in full and making the compensation scheme independent of the Home Office. Like the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), I hope very much that the Minister is in a position to update the House on the progress being made on righting those wrongs and delivering justice.

The Lib Dems have long pushed for the implementation of a comprehensive race equality strategy, which would include provisions aimed at reducing the disproportionately high and utterly shameful maternal mortality rates for black women and for eliminating racial disparities in maternal health, as other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned this evening.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to have a point on the record, as it is very important to do so—I was talking to the Parliamentary Private Secretary beforehand, and I talked to the Minister earlier on. On behalf of Windrush people who got their status in Northern Ireland, I will say that the Windrush scheme for Northern Ireland enabled people to work and remain and to have equality with the rest of us. I put on record our thanks for that scheme, because those in Northern Ireland who came through the Windrush scheme were enabled to help our country and Northern Ireland be a better place because of the culture, history, and interaction and social action that they bring.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Each successive generation that arrives on these shores, as people have done for millennia, has added to our rich cultural and social fabric. He is absolutely right to highlight his part of the world and the impact that people have had in his community.

On the things that we should also look at, I will say that we should end the disproportionate use of stop and search. We should also look very carefully at the use of live facial recognition, which is most likely to wrongly identify black men and women.

In so many ways, we are holding this debate because of the tireless campaigning of many of the Windrush generation, not least the Liberal Democrat peer, my noble Friend Baroness Floella Benjamin. Floella’s journey is emblematic of the Windrush generation. She arrived in Britain from Trinidad in 1960 at the age of 10, accompanied by three of her siblings. Her childhood was marked by persistent racism; she recalls every day as a battle where she was either ignored or subjected to verbal abuse. During a house viewing, neighbours called the police, accusing her family of stealing furniture from what would soon be their own home.

Floella, of course, was not alone. Many children of her generation endured those indignities in silence, shouldering the burden of rejection by clinging to the hope that life would one day improve. Leaving school at 16, she chartered an extraordinary path—first as an actress, then as a presenter, writer, independent producer and always a tireless advocate for the care, education and welfare of children worldwide. Today, she chairs the Windrush Commemoration Committee, which is charged with establishing a lasting tribute to the Windrush generation and its descendants. Among the Committee’s notable achievements is the unveiling of the national Windrush monument at Waterloo station, which was designed by celebrated Jamaican artist Basil Watson, as mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The monument stands as a powerful symbol of the immense hardship and equally immense contributions of the Windrush generation to British life. Floella’s voice remains a powerful one, holding the Government to account to ensure that the Windrush generation receives the recognition and justice that it so rightly deserves.

I believe it was Floella who first proposed the idea of Windrush Day as a national celebration of the moment when Caribbean communities came to rebuild Britain in the face of adversity. It is thanks to her determination that we are able to mark this occasion and speak of it today. As well as being the giver of the best hugs in Parliament, she is a celebrated author, using her experience to educate future generations with her writing. It is right that we celebrate Floella and all the Windrush generation today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Free School Meals

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are determined to bring down child poverty. This is a complex area that we need to get right, and it is not for me to comment on particular speculation at the moment. Extensive work is ongoing on the child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year, and an update in the House will be provided in due course.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As a Liberal Democrat, I warmly welcome the announcement today. I stood on a manifesto that mentioned this policy at the previous four general elections, and it is good news. However, it would be the best news if the Minister could explain more about what he means by fully funded. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I proudly report that I am in my 19th year as a primary school governor, so I know that school budgets are stretched to the limit. Will the Minister explain what he means when he says fully funded—does that mean fully funded from existing school budgets?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her time as a school governor, especially as we mark Volunteers’ Week. The work of school governors up and down the country is invaluable, and they play a particular role in supporting schools’ compliance with school food standards. We currently spend more than £1.5 billion on school food annually, delivering free school meals to around 3.5 million children. We will set out further details on the funding as part of our wider child poverty strategy in due course.