Antisemitism: University Campuses

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered antisemitism on university campuses.

I want to begin by paying tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for its stellar work to represent Jewish students and fight antisemitism. I also thank Jewish communal bodies for all their work on this issue and more widely.

This debate is deeply personal for me. I am not Jewish, but my experience at university alongside Jewish students helped to shape the person and the politician I am today. When I was a student at the University of Leeds in 2008, I decided to stand with the Jewish society. Even then, despite not having a deep or ingrained knowledge of the issues surrounding Israel, Palestine or modern antisemitism, I could see that my fellow students were subject to racism and discrimination just because they were Jewish.

As a member of the Labour party, a party for which equality is a core value, that shocked and appalled me. As chair of the university Labour club, I stood by Jewish students. As a sabbatical officer on the student union executive, I stood by Jewish students. Now, 20 years later, having had the honour and privilege of being elected by the good people of Leeds South West and Morley as their Member of Parliament, I stand with Jewish students again, as I always will.

We must be clear at the outset about the scale of the problem and its source. We must also be clear that those who deny that there is a problem are part of it. As the Community Security Trust has detailed forensically, antisemitism soared on our campuses following the 7 October attacks, rising by 413% between 2022-23 and the following academic year. October 2023 saw over a year’s worth of antisemitic incidents in just one month.

A poll commissioned by the UJS and published this year found that a quarter of all students—25%—do not care very much, or at all, if Jewish students are forced to hide their identity on campus. Even more shockingly, 20% of students say that they would be reluctant to, or would never, live with a Jewish student. Antisemitism has, in the words of the UJS, become “normalised on campus”.

We will never be able to grasp or tackle this crisis until we recognise that it is driven primarily by antisemitic anti-Zionism, the ugly form in which centuries of Jew-hate finds its most virulent expression today. The CST says that over 70% of the antisemitic incidents that it recorded in higher education last year were overtly related to Israel and the middle east, while also demonstrating anti-Jewish hate or motivation.

I must be crystal clear: this is not about the legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli Government—goodness knows, I have been a critic. That criticism is expressly protected in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Nor is this about the legitimate protests that people carry out in support of the Palestinian people.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I commend the hon. Member for his unity and solidarity with Jewish students and Jewish people. Does he agree that conflating Israel with all Jewish people is also something that should be avoided, as it can lead to an increase in antisemitism?

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The purpose of the debate is to talk about antisemitism on campus, what drives it and how we can solve it. I want to be clear that a lot of what drives antisemitism on campus today relates to the denial of the equally legitimate right of the Jewish people to self-determine—there is no question but that that is one of the causes. It is about abusing some of the most precious aspects of our democracy. The right to free expression and the right to protest are being twisted to intimidate, harass and abuse Jewish students, in pursuit of a cause that we often see animated by racism, hatred and violence. That is why half of all students have heard chants or slogans that glorify Hamas, Hezbollah or other antisemitic terror organisations. It is why similar numbers of students have witnessed the 7 October attacks, the bloodiest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, being justified.

This is what globalising the intifada means in the real world. It is the student trying to take her biology exam while chants calling for the destruction of Israel and praising terrorists who massacred Jews on 7 October were screamed through a megaphone outside. It is the student who had to listen to their lecturer saying that hostage taking was

“the only way for Palestinians to negotiate.”

It is the students who have witnessed so-called pro-Palestine societies holding bake sales on Holocaust Memorial Day and the anniversary of the 7 October attacks.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Not many people know this, but on my father’s side I have Jewish ancestry, so I have an affiliation with Israel. With Jewish students across the UK describing the last couple of years as among the worst that they have ever experienced for antisemitism, does the hon. Member agree that the Government and colleges have a great deal of work to do to change mindsets so that Jewish students feel safe on their campuses?

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Later in my speech, I will come on to what I think the Government should be doing, but as the hon. Member mentions colleges, I will say that the Government should adopt David Bell’s recommendations once he has completed his review into antisemitism in schools and colleges. We have to stamp this out wherever we find it.

The effort to stigmatise, isolate and harass Jewish students has even, on occasion, been accompanied by physical violence. Last year, I was pleased to return to Leeds JSoc to hear the first-hand testimony of Jewish students. They told me of being taunted by shouts of “Free Palestine” when they were going to Shabbat dinner at Hillel House, an event that had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They told me what it feels like to have a lecturer boast of how proud he was of seeing his son arrested for supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. In some instances, they also told me personally that they were hiding their identity from their flatmates because of the fear of how they might react.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an incredibly important speech. As someone who has visited the site of the Nova music festival, I have sensed some of the horrific slaughter and how awful that must be for those generations who are living with it. Referring to what the lecturer said, what powers should universities have to discipline members of staff who make such outrageous statements?

[Mark Sewards]

Having stood on the same site, I know just how powerful it is. Those people must be remembered for all time. I will come on later to recommendations for the Government; I realise that time is getting on, and I want to make some progress, but I will address the hon. Member’s point later.

Abuse and intimidation on our campuses is not just directed at Jewish students. Rabbi Deutsch, the university’s Jewish chaplain, was hounded, bullied and, with his family, forced into hiding after death threats—that was at Leeds University again. Beyond Leeds, Jewish academics and staff on campuses have been subject to appalling antisemitism. Israeli professor Michael Ben-Gad was targeted by activists last year. He was threatened with beheading, and mass protesters stormed his teaching and his classes. Professor David Hirsh, a world-renowned expert on antisemitism, was forced to quit the University and College Union, of which he himself had been a founding member, because he found it intolerable to stay. Quite rightly, we would never accept such behaviour being directed at any other group of students or staff from any other minority background. In Britain in 2026, Jewish students and staff should not and must not be denied the safety, dignity and respect that we expect all students and staff to be afforded.

Although it has obviously worsened considerably over the past three years, antisemitism on our campuses is not a new problem. Fifty years ago, anti-Israel activists on British campuses responded to the passage of the UN’s now infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution by attempting to ban Jewish student groups who supported the idea of a Jewish state, in effect banning huge numbers of Jewish students from campus. Half a century on, technology has exacerbated the challenge. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has rightly warned:

“Campus antisemitism is the direct physical consequence of the online ecosystem. Social media platforms, AI chatbots, search engines and computer games have allowed extreme, conspiratorial antisemitism to shift from the dark fringes of the web into the mainstream student experience.”

Two aspects are particularly noteworthy. The first is the manner in which well-networked extreme student groups operate anonymously, allowing them—sometimes in co-ordination with hostile state actors, it has to be said—to launch harassment campaigns against Jewish staff and students, with little or no risk of ever facing exposure or discipline.

Secondly, no 18-year-old arrives at university without exposure to social media and what the APT terms “algorithmic grooming”. This speaks to a wider point. Campuses are not hermetically sealed bubbles. We know that through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the nefarious IRGC—Tehran and its media mouthpieces are seeking to radicalise young people here, spread antisemitism and amplify anti-Israel activism and narratives. In recent years, IRGC commanders have addressed UK-based student groups in online seminars, urging them to become “holy warriors” in an “apocalyptic war” against the Jews. Universities, one of them suggested, “have become the battlefront”, and they are calling them to arms.

We must not allow our seats of higher education and learning, which at their best should promote, cultivate and guard the Enlightenment values of reason, tolerance and freedom of expression, to become incubators of extremism, fundamentalism and hatred. Too many universities have been too slow, too timid and too ineffectual in tackling antisemitism. In some instances, they have failed Jewish students and staff, the wider student body and the very purpose and principles underpinning academia and university life.

That brings me on to my actions and what I ask of the Minister today. In the face of this challenge, I commend the action that the Government have already taken, especially the Prime Minister’s announcement that universities will be required to publish information on the scale of the problem on their campuses, as well as the specific steps that they will take to clamp down on it. I believe—to go back to what the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) said—that the Government should also consider the establishment of a statutory framework for the investigation and disciplinary handling of hate crime incidents in higher education and universities. The Charity Commission, the Office for Students and other regulatory bodies should all be empowered to ensure proper conduct and strengthen student union accountability, implementing sanctions where unions fail to address antisemitism. Higher education should be designated as a priority area for the extremely welcome Government agenda, “Protecting What Matters”, which was announced in March this year; it contains a lot of good material, but not necessarily the timelines in which to deliver it.

I note that in the past UJS has provided a vital early warning system about emerging extremist threats. For instance, in the cases of the neo-Nazi National Action group and the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Government have followed with proscription, recognising that a threat on campuses soon becomes a wider threat to the safety of everyone.

I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could clarify a few points. What is the timetable for implementing the measures set out in the “Protecting What Matters” strategy? Will he ensure that higher education is a priority area? Will the Government consider UJS’s proposal for formalised taskforces to better co-ordinate action by the police, universities and Government to combat criminality and extremist activity on our campuses? That includes the provision of clear public order guidance for universities and the police, to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing powers. Finally, will the Government consider the proposals developed by the Antisemitism Policy Trust to tackle the threat posed by social media? That includes developing a dedicated strategy to address the role of algorithms, gaming platforms, encrypted online networks and generative AI systems in facilitating the spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories, extremist narratives and online-to-offline radicalisation.

I want to acknowledge the work of Jewish societies, student unions and university administrators. Some of them are doing tremendous work right now to deal with this problem. I will give three quick examples. King’s College London adopted UJS’s antisemitism awareness training, working with it to adapt that important resource for many of its staff. Keele University’s campus security team responded to the appalling attacks on the Jewish community in north London by inviting Jewish students to speak about their concerns and what they can do to address them. In communications with all students, City St George’s student union in London encouraged them not to engage with City Action for Palestine, which has repeatedly shared content supportive of terrorism and proscribed organisations.

I will end today with where it all began for me. This year, I had the privilege of attending one of Leeds University JSoc’s Friday night dinners, one of the first I had attended in 18 years. The invitation described it as a small gathering, but I was delighted to find that it was a rather less intimate event than that. There were over 150 students there, and there had been 300 the week before; I think the lower attendance in the week I came was not because of me, but because it was half-term. It was a pleasure to be there and to speak to as many students as possible. Around the tables, some students were discussing their studies. Many spent the evening gossiping and making new friends—everything that student life should be about for everyone.

Our Jewish fellow citizens are not asking very much from us: simply the right for their children and grandchildren to expect and enjoy the same experiences at university, with all its new opportunities, discoveries and challenges, that so many of us cherished and enjoyed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the essential aspect of accountability. The Office for Students has been given additional powers in recent years. It is also true that the scale of the challenge that we see with antisemitism on university campuses, and the challenge that many universities are facing in meeting their obligations to uphold the freedom of speech while also creating the climate and culture necessary for freedom from intimidation, may lead a Select Committee to hold an inquiry on that. It would, of course, be a matter for Parliament and a Select Committee to do so, but if that were to happen, the Department for Education would be very interested in its findings.

We know that many of the conspiracy theories and hateful tropes that underpin antisemitism are also features of extremist ideologies. Left unchallenged, they can create an environment in which radicalisation becomes more likely. At their most serious, they can form part of a pathway towards terrorism. Prevent data shows that in the year to March 2025, there were 8,778 referrals, 21% of which were linked to extreme right-wing concerns and 10% to Islamist extremism. Although Prevent does not record antisemitism as a stand-alone category, those figures illustrate how antisemitic narratives can, and often do, form part of extremist worldviews that carry a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

Most antisemitic incidents fall well below the threshold for Prevent intervention. Nevertheless, the data demonstrates that, in the most serious cases, ideas rooted in historical antisemitic prejudice can become part of a trajectory towards terrorism. That is why, through our wider Protecting What Matters programme, we are taking action to challenge antisemitism and extremism wherever they arise. We are strengthening oversight of universities’ Prevent duties; updating guidance on external speakers and events, which is due to come out very soon; improving our ability to identify emerging extremist activity; enhancing whistleblowing protections; and increasing transparency around incidents of antisemitism.

[Mark Sewards]

Can the Minister give us a more specific timeline than “very soon”?

[Josh MacAlister]

I reviewed a draft of that guidance a matter of days ago, and it is due to be published very shortly. The issue is probably more that there is a queue of things to be published, rather than it not being ready to go.

We must remain alert to the actions of hostile state actors who seek to exploit social tensions, spread disinformation and undermine community cohesion. The Government are therefore strengthening their response to state threats through tougher powers to identify and disrupt hostile activity, greater transparency around foreign influence, and stronger measures against those acting on behalf of foreign states. Where there is evidence of unacceptable activity linked to foreign actors, including Iran, we will not hesitate to act.

Our message is simple and unequivocal: there is no place for antisemitism, extremism or hostile state interference in our universities or our society. We will defend lawful free speech, protect students from intimidation and ensure that campuses remain places where learning, debate and mutual respect can thrive.

[Mark Sewards]

It has been an excellent debate, and I value everybody’s contributions today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who talked about his experience compared with that of Jewish people, how wildly different it was and how insane it is that we tolerate that in this day and age. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for talking about the experiences of Warwick students, both good and bad. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) gave an excellent history lesson and spoke about the fact that this has happened before—and before Israel even existed. Antisemitism flares up on campuses regardless of the circumstances, and we must deal with that.

I could not find a fault in the first half of the speech made by hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). He invited me to work with him to deal with this problem, and I gladly accept. I would gently say—I did not intervene at the time, because I wanted other Members to get in—that there is clearly a problem on campuses, and we have to intervene now, if 20% of all students say that they do not want to live with Jewish students. I would also say, on the issue of universities clamping down on free speech too much, that there is clearly still a problem if Jewish students have to live in fear on campuses today. It is worth having a discussion about that after the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke brilliantly about experiences of Jewish students from across the country. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) was excellent in her summation; I have to say that she, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and the Minister almost spoke with one voice, giving a new, positive meaning to the word “uniparty”.

I will end by saying a huge thank you to UJS, which has provided a lot of the statistics and evidence that we have used in our speeches today. I commend its members for their work, and I know that it will continue. I want them, and everybody outside this place, to know that they will always have a friend in us.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered antisemitism on university campuses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Many parents rely heavily on SENDIASS—special educational needs and disabilities information, advice and support services. We know that these services are free, impartial and vital for parents. Given that we expect demand on these services to increase, how will the Minister ensure that local authorities have the necessary financial and practical resources to maintain the independence and quality of SENDIASS?

[Georgia Gould]

I have heard from many families how critical SENDIASS is. We are continuing to fund SENDIASS, and in our consultation on SEND we included a question on how we can better support parents and on what investment we need to put in to do that, so it is an area that we are looking at.

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Fundamentally, I think it is right that graduates contribute to their education. I did so via a plan 1 loan and a subsequent postgraduate loan, too. For all its faults, that system ensured that universities could accommodate record numbers of people like me, who were the first in their family to go to university. But we are now at a point where people who pay an additional 9% of their income above a certain threshold question why the amount seems to only ever increase. The introduction of plan 2 loans and the trebling of tuition fees to £9,000 created a system where those who had to rely on it were essentially paying a graduate tax in all but name, while those who could afford to pay the tuition fees up front were able to avoid that burden altogether.

At the time that the loans were introduced, I argued that a graduate tax would be a much more progressive way of funding university: it would resolve that inherent unfairness of a graduate tax for some but not for all. However, the transition to such a system now would be costly and difficult, and would do nothing for those graduates who now have record amounts of debt. That is why the time is right to have the conversation about debt, interest, repayment thresholds and loan terms. Although tinkering with those things is definitely easier than wholesale replacement, they all come with costs, which have to be part of any conversation. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that now is the time for a genuine, thorough discussion in Government about the need to support graduates in such a position.

Kinship Carer Identification

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for securing a debate on this important matter. Like him, I recognise the enormous contribution that kinship carers make to children’s lives. This Government are committed to helping more children grow up in safe, stable and loving homes within their family networks, wherever it is in the child’s best interests.

I want to begin by acknowledging the incredible commitment and generosity of kinship carers. By opening their hearts and homes to some of the country’s most vulnerable children, they are transforming the future generation. We should not underestimate the life-changing difference that kinship carers make every single day to children across this country. Kinship children and families need support to navigate the very challenging circumstances they find themselves in.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Minister is giving a comprehensive answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins). My constituent Natalie had seven nephews and nieces brought to her door and was told by the police and social services that it would be really good if she could take them in. She was then told that she was not entitled to any support whatsoever because it was a family arrangement, but she had not made the arrangement herself. She is a hero for taking those children in. I accept that multiple campaigns state what kinship carers should be entitled to, but would the Minister agree that in this circumstance with these unambiguous details that she absolutely should get the support that she is entitled to?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is because of stories exactly like that one—from aunts, uncles, grandparents and other relatives across the country who often step into these children’s lives at sometimes no notice, waking up one morning to find that they are now responsible for very young children, sometimes babies and newborns—that I recommended a whole series of changes when I undertook the independent review of children’s social care in 2022. In that review, I described kinship carers as the “silent and unheard majority” of the care system.

Under this Government, they are now being heard.

I will set out a few of the things the Government are taking forward now and in the coming weeks to change the situation for kinship carers across this country. To ensure that family networks and kinship care are always fully explored—there are good examples in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, and elsewhere in the UK—we are legislating right now to require all local authorities to offer a family group decision-making process such as a family group conference to all parents, or those with parental responsibility, whose child’s case has reached the pre-proceedings stage. That will bake in the need for services to engage proactively with the whole family network, not just parents, to establish whether the family themselves have a better answer for looking after that child than the care system. That, more than anything else, will probably be the factor that shifts the culture within children’s social care to put the initial focus on kinship networks.

That will be backed by the roll-out of family network support packages so that councils can fund some of the more informal arrangements that are a way of avoiding the need for children to enter the care system.

Holidays During School Term Time

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes]

I have not mentioned fines, but I agree that fining parents is a very flawed area of policy. I do not want to say it is always entirely the wrong thing to do, but fines are not a particularly effective mechanism for discouraging parents from removing their children from school for a holiday. The cost of a fine is almost always cheaper than the additional costs of a holiday outside term time. That is why I said that the solution to the imbalance in costs across term time is not to enable and authorise that absence, but to deal with the exploitative policies of travel companies. Fines, undoubtedly, are an imperfect mechanism.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will recall that we in the Education Committee held an evidence session in July about school attendance. One of the witnesses stated that fines are

“simultaneously too harsh and too soft”;

too harsh, because they damage the relationship between parents and schools, but too soft to move the dial substantially on school attendance. Although, as a former teacher, I agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, does she have any further reflection on the need to look at the fines system again, to replace it or to come up with something more effective?

[Helen Hayes]

Fundamentally, we are talking about relationships in this debate, particularly between schools and parents. The best way to build strong relationships is not through punitive measures. We need to properly resource schools, through the wider policy work of Government, to rebuild the relationships that were so damaged by the pandemic, and to make progress in this area.

Finally, I come back to where I started. Family time matters, and family holidays are important periods of fun and restoration. I call on the Government to do more—to work with the travel industry to stop the exploitation of families with school-age children through unfair price hikes, perhaps by introducing a new family-friendly charter mark for companies that even out their pricing throughout the year—and to continue to ease the cost of living pressures that far too many families face, so that every child can thrive both in school and at play.

Early Education and Childcare

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Listening to the Conservative Front Bench spokesperson, one would think that everything was fine and rosy in education before the previous election, and that everything would have been fine if only the Conservatives had been given one more chance. Compare and contrast that with what we have delivered in our first year in Government: 30 hours of free childcare, actually funded; free breakfast clubs; cheaper school uniforms on the way; best start family hubs; and of course—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Sewards, do you have an actual question? If so, go for it!

[Mark Sewards]

Will the Minister join me in encouraging parents in my constituency of Leeds South West and Morley to take advantage of everything this Government have done to make the lives of parents and children easier?

[Stephen Morgan]

Well, I thank my hon. Friend for that very good question! It was a real privilege to visit his constituency and to see the brilliant work that childcare providers are doing in his patch, ensuring that every child gets the best start in life. He is a real voice on these issues, and will be working closely with me and the team to deliver further change for our country.

Educational Attainment of Boys

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I do share that concern. We should have a debate about the way in which we address that issue, as well as about the issues facing young care leavers. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about what the prison population looks like.

The issue is not just about adolescents, because the problem begins in early years. By the end of reception, just 60.7% of boys are assessed to be “school-ready”, compared with 75% of girls, a point that I will return to later. Where does it end? A quarter of a million young men, aged 16 to 24, are classed as NEETs—not in education, employment or training—which is 78% higher than the number for young women. That is a post-covid increase of 40% for young males, compared with an increase of just 7% for young females.

What is more, as the Centre for Social Justice reported recently:

“For those young men who are in work, the…gender pay gap has been reversed. Young men are now out-earned by their female peers, including among the university educated.”

This national challenge is especially acute in constituencies like mine, of Bishop Auckland, and across former coalfield communities in the north-east, where too often working-class boys start behind, and stay behind. I did not call the debate today merely to highlight an issue—I want it to lead to action and I am calling for real change. That begins with taking the issue seriously, because what concerns me most is not the data, but the absence of outrage and lack of urgency.

It was not always this way. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was girls who were lagging behind. The Government rightly took action to improve outcomes for girls, introducing targeted support, challenging curriculum bias, expanding grammar schools for girls and promoting girls’ access to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Those were not small tweaks, but deliberate strategic interventions, and they worked. Now that the situation is reversed, with boys persistently underachieving, where is the strategy? I am not talking about a general strategy to address deprivation or educational disadvantage, but a specific, evidence-based, deliverable strategy around boys and young men that addresses the gender-based aspects of underachievement.

At the foundation of that strategy must be a resolve to stop blaming boys and to start rebuilding their self-worth. There was a time in the 1970s when society did the same for girls. It became known as “the deficit approach” because it attributed girls’ underachievement, relative to boys, to a lack of effort or a deficiency in them, rather than the failures and limitations of the education system or prevalent socioeconomic trends. So-called “biological determinists” argued that gender differences were natural and unalterable, and, simply put, girls were not as bright. Thankfully, those nonsense theories have been well and truly debunked when it comes to girls, yet too often, when we talk about boys, the tone shifts to blame. It is as if boys’ underachievement is seen as self-inflicted, a product of laziness or of so-called “toxic masculinity”.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. In my eight and a half years as a maths teacher, teaching in inner city schools, I found that the problem was never just about a lack of aspiration but about a lack of access and a lack of knowledge; that goes for any group, not just for boys. Does he agree?

[Sam Rushworth]

Absolutely—that is a point well made, and I hope that we will have more contributions of that nature during the debate.

Boys are not the problem: it is the system that is failing them. Of course we need to help boys to develop empathy, respect for those who are different, self-control, and awareness about how their words and actions affect others, but can we please be more careful not to tell boys that they are, by nature, toxic, or that, in 2025, they are privileged simply by being male, when many feel anything but that? They feel undervalued, distrusted and anxious that they will never live up to society’s expectations.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

There was an awful lot of imagining in the hon. Lady’s question, and understandably so—less understandable, though, in relation to some of her comments. The statement is due today, and the hon. Lady will have to await it, as will all Members of this House and those who are keenly looking at their schools’ budgets to ensure they can provide the best education possible. I know that is what schools are rightly focused on doing, and we are focused on supporting them to do that.

I gently remind Opposition Members that this is the earliest STRB announcement in a decade, because we recognise how important budgeting is for schools and how important it is that they have this information in a timely way. That was not respected under the previous Government. We want to provider this information in good time and give notice as early as possible, so that schools can plan the excellent outcomes for children that I know they are striving for. We will also support them to use their funding as efficiently as possible. The Department has worked on a whole suite of productivity initiatives, as well as support for schools to manage energy costs and banking costs and to minimise any expenditure that is not on the frontline, supporting children. That is what we will continue to do.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I reiterate what the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), said: teaching assistants are the glue that keep our classrooms together and they should be paid adequately. I am pleased to hear the Minister state that retention is up, with 2,000 more teachers in training. As a former teacher, I understand that workload is often cited as a reason that we do not retain teachers. Marking, lesson planning, admin and data entry all keep teachers away from spending time with their students. Can the Minister update us on what work her Department is doing with respect to artificial intelligence and its roll-out in our classrooms to reduce teacher workload and get them in front of students?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I welcome the constructive nature of my hon. Friend’s question, because regardless of any announcement this afternoon, we know that schools are working hard to deliver for children. As a Government, we need to work our hardest—and we are—to support them to do so. That means a whole range of productivity measures to support teachers with their workload, to support schools with their costs, and to ensure we grab the opportunity of technological developments so that any teacher’s time is maximised with children in the classroom, helping them with their learning and being supported with technology to maximise children’s outcomes. We will continue to work; we are very much looking forward, and unfortunately those on the Opposition Benches seem constantly to be looking back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to help support SEND children not in full-time education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

We are committed to reforming the special educational needs and disabilities system. We are also acting now through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, children not in school registers and a duty on local authorities to provide advice to eligible families. We will help local authorities identify and support these children to achieve and thrive.

[Mark Sewards]

I recently met a constituent at my surgery whose son has missed out on more than 800 hours of education. That is despite her attempts to find special educational provision for her son in 14 different schools across our region. She is now very concerned, because the council has said that he is at risk of criminal exploitation and cannot be left alone. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case and also provide reassurance that this Government will ensure that vulnerable SEND students get the educational provision they deserve?

[Stephen Morgan]

One of the ministerial team will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the important issues that he raises. All children are legally entitled to a full-time education, which is important for their educational progress, their wellbeing and their wider development. It is the local authority’s responsibility to arrange suitable education when it is not already in place, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contact his local authority to discuss this matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. No child should struggle to get to school because of a lack of transport, and no child should have to travel great distances if there could be an inclusive and appropriate place for them at their local mainstream school. That is what we are determined to deliver for all children, both to ensure that they get the best opportunities and for their families.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

T8.   Springfield Training provides excellent opportunities in Leeds South West and Morley for young people not in work, training or education to do fulfilling apprenticeships. I have seen that in action myself. What is the Department doing to support such organisations to get young people into work?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

Independent training providers are an important part of the post-16 education landscape. They are funded to deliver the training that employers and learners need. That supports our plan for a youth guarantee to ensure that every young person can earn and learn. Springfield Training contributes to that effort, governed by our contractual relationship with commercial providers.