Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Debate between Munira Wilson and Amanda Martin

Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for breaking with his decades-long tradition of eschewing private Member’s Bills and engaging with this process. I congratulate him on coming top of the ballot and was very amused by his response when he won that lottery—one that many of us in this House would love to win. I congratulate him on his choice of Bill, and the work that he has done with the 1001 Critical Days Foundation—with Andrea Leadsom, Will Quince and others—to enshrine in law the support that babies, parents and carers should receive, as well as ensuring that there is proper accountability in place to make sure that that support is forthcoming.

Many Members have talked about their parenting experiences. I was just thinking how I remember my first being born, and today she has just started year 8 of school aged 12. I cannot even begin to imagine how quickly she has grown up, and I remember those sleepless nights. I think about those tiny babies: vulnerable, defenceless, voiceless—except for when they are screaming for food at 3 am—yet so often overlooked in policymaking and service planning, something that the NSPCC has described in its briefing as the “baby blind spot”. We have so many other services and provision for older children enshrined in law, but not for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

As others have already said, we know that a person’s quality of life and outcomes are profoundly shaped by those early months and years. People have talked about the rapid brain development; the first 1,001 days lay the foundations for a child’s development, including attachment, emotional regulation, language and lifelong physical and mental health. As we have heard, babies are entirely reliant on the adults around them to protect and nurture them. Again, that is why I was shocked to read in the NSPCC briefing that 61% of child deaths happen in babies under the age of one. That is profoundly shocking. It underscores the importance of the support that we provide to parents and carers, ensuring that people are going into people’s homes to see what is going on, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), has said.

We have talked about the first 1,001 days being crucial, but that actually starts at conception, going through pregnancy and birth and into a child’s early years—we have to ensure that support is there before those difficulties become crises. Yet at the moment, help and support for parents and carers remains really quite patchy across the country. The healthy babies programme is extremely welcome, bringing together infant feeding, perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationship support alongside wider health and family services, but at the moment it covers only 75 local authorities in England. It is quite right and sensible that the Government have targeted the areas of greatest disadvantage first with the roll-out of that programme, but we do need that support quickly right across the country.

I represent an affluent constituency, but we do have pockets of real deprivation within the constituency, and pockets of deprivation within a much more affluent area tend to be overlooked even more. Also, let us face it: whatever someone’s sociodemographic situation, new parents need support. Yes, some of that support can be bought, but being signposted to a trusted place in those early days and weeks is absolutely critical.

We have talked about people going into the homes of new parents and babies to provide support. The number of health visitors has fallen by 40% over the past decade, and in some areas practitioners are responsible for more than 1,000 children, far exceeding the recommended caseload of 250 children per practitioner.

Research by the NSPCC has found that more than half of parents of young children do not feel confident about the support that was available to them in their local area. There are issues with both accessibility, which we have talked about, and which is variable across the country, and awareness—although 66% of parents had heard of family hubs, only 16% had actually used one.

I want to pay tribute to the many voluntary sector organisations that often step into the gaps in national and local government service provision and support that are left around the country. I have seen this in my constituency with charities such as Home-Start, which supports new parents and children, and specifically with the charity The Extra Mile, which was set up by the Hampton Methodist church in Hampton. It takes in donations of all sorts of baby equipment and clothes. It gets many referrals from GPs, midwives, health visitors and social services and is constantly giving so much out to families in need, not just in my constituency, but well beyond it.

I also want to give a shout-out to Reach family hub in Feltham, which is not in my constituency but just down the road, in an area of deprivation. Thanks to the inspirational work of a headteacher at Reach academy, Reach has worked with health services and the local authority to provide a family hub with charitable support very close to the school, meaning that the academy is engaging with parents-to-be right from conception through to when their children go to school at Reach, up to 16, and then on to Reach college, up to the age of 18. The academy has identified that that early support is absolutely crucial for the most disadvantaged families.

It goes without saying that babies cannot speak for themselves, advocate for their needs or demand better services. I think that that is one of the reasons they are so overlooked. It should not fall to exhausted parents and carers to have to fight tooth and nail for the essential services they need to protect and nurture their children.

It is our duty as elected representatives and policymakers to ensure that parents and carers have access to the support that they need, when they need it, so that every child has the best start in life. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, however, this needs to be coupled with a serious review, which I know the Government are undertaking, and I hope they will make their proposals soon for better maternity, paternity and shared parental leave arrangements. I include leave for kinship carers in that. Many in this House will know that I and other Members from across the parties have been working on this issue for a long time. We want families to have genuine choice and flexibility in how they look after their children, and all the evidence shows that having a parent, whoever it is—it does not have to be the mother; it often is, but in my children’s case, often my husband was with them, while I was out at work—more present at home helps with attachment and emotional development.

Government policy over the years has been heavily skewed towards trying to get parents back into the workplace as soon as possible. That is excellent for those families who want that, but we need to provide genuine choice, so providing more support for parents who want to spend more time at home should be a Government priority.

[Amanda Martin]

From the work that I have been doing, it is evident that 90% of parental leave is taken by the top 50% of earners in this country. That means that this is part of the class system; we are not allowing those lower-paid workers to take time with their babies. It is not that they do not want to be a good dad; they are literally priced out of being able to be a good dad.

[Munira Wilson]

I could not agree more. Statutory paternity leave, statutory maternity leave and shared parental leave pay is less than half the minimum wage. That is not affordable for parents who want to stay at home, whether they are a mum or a dad, and we as a society really need to look at this seriously. If we believe in investing in our children, we have to start here.

There have been a number of attacks on the coalition today, which I am happy to take on the chin, but in government it was the Liberal Democrats who fought hard to introduce shared parental leave. It still pains me to this day that take-up is so low because it is not affordable. Big employers that want to be competitive in the marketplace are providing really good and enhanced benefits in the form of shared parental leave, which attracts people—particularly dads—who want to spend more time with their family. The businesses realise that it is good for them, because they get more women coming back to the workplace sooner so that dads can then spend more time at home. They also get more engaged and more productive employees. I really hope that the Government’s review of parental leave arrangements will result in a better offer on the table for parents in all sorts of families—not only those with birth children, but kinship carers, too.

This Bill is excellent. It is quite high level, but finally putting a legal duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on the provision of infant support services and their contribution to securing positive outcomes puts the wellbeing of babies and their parents firmly on the agenda. It should also keep them on the agenda and protect babies and parents, whoever is in Government, although I note that some Members who think they ought to be in Government are off at their conference.

The measure of a nation is how it treats its weakest citizens. If we truly care about the future of our country, we must start by caring and investing in babies and children. I am delighted to support this Bill.

Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test

Debate between Munira Wilson and Amanda Martin

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

rose—

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Munira Wilson and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Munira Wilson]

I think it is unfair because, as I have pointed out, we saw the most damaging cuts, and the lack of keeping up with inflation—in terms of schools funding—from 2015 onwards. As Liberals, it is core to our DNA to champion education, because we recognise that that is the route out of poverty and disadvantage for everyone. No matter someone’s background, that is how they flourish in life. That is why we had such a big focus on education when we were in government. Sadly, we never saw that level of focus after we left government.

I return to clause 44 and the amendments in my name. I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about judicial reviews. I do not share his concerns far enough to support his amendment, because a judicial review is sometimes an important safety valve in all sorts of decision making, but I recognise what he says: that all sorts of campaigns and judicial reviews could start up. Just the other day, I was talking to a former Minister who has been involved in a London school that needs turning around; they have had all sorts of problems in making the necessary changes, and were subject to a judicial review, which the governing body and those involved won. I recognise and share the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister will address them, but putting a bar on all JRs in primary legislation is possibly overreach.

[Amanda Martin]

I want to comment on judicial reviews. Opposition Members will be aware that the previous Government’s long-standing policy of issuing academisation orders to schools with two RIs was not in fact a duty, but can they set out on how many occasions those would have been challenged through a judicial review? Rather than them taking the time, I can tell them that there were numerous judicial reviews that held up the changes that we would have wanted to make, whether regarding governance or a change in leadership. The clause allows local authorities and local areas to choose which way to go.

[Munira Wilson]

The hon. Lady posed a question and answered it herself, so I shall move on.

My amendment 95 is perhaps made redundant by yesterday’s announcements, but amendment 96 talks about parliamentary oversight. That comes back to the fundamental point that I made in the Chamber yesterday, which is that we will end up passing the Bill before we see the outcome of the consultations from Ofsted and the Government on school improvement. I therefore humbly ask Ministers to at least allow Parliament to have sight of what will replace the power that is being amended, our support for which is of long standing.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Munira Wilson and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Martin]

The right hon. Member was a Secretary of State, and under his leadership the teachers’ recruitment crisis was worse than it had ever been. Recruitment targets for core subjects such as maths, physics and modern languages were missed, and retention rates were poor. That was when we were allowing people with qualified teachers status and without it. It is not a bottom line for what we want our children to have: it should be a right for every single child, wherever they are in the country, to be taught by a qualified teacher, or somebody on the route to qualified teacher status. Just because we had not achieved it under the last Government, that does not mean we should not have ambition for our children to achieve it under this Government.

[Munira Wilson]

I note your comment about speaking specifically to the clauses and amendments under consideration, Sir Edward; I wanted to start with some comments that relate both to this group and to several clauses that follow, so that I do not try the Committee’s patience by repeating myself.

My comments relate in general to the various academy freedoms with which these clauses are concerned. I want to take a step back and ask this question: where have these proposals come from? The entire sector and indeed the Children’s Commissioner seem to have been blindsided. When I speak to teachers and school leaders, at the top of their priority list is sorting out SEND, the recruitment and retention crisis, children missing from school and children’s mental health. Parents tell me that they just want their schools funded properly so that they are not being asked to buy glue sticks and tissue boxes.

Not once have I heard a maintained or academy school leader or parent say to me that the biggest problem in our schools that we need to sort out is the academy freedoms. This was reflected in the oral evidence that we heard. To quote Sir Dan Moynihan,

“It is not clear what problem this is solving. I have seen no evidence to suggest that academy freedoms are creating an issue anywhere. Why are we doing this?” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 75, Q160.]

I ask Ministers that very question. What is the problem that the Government were seeking to fix when they drew up this clause, and several subsequent clauses, in relation to the academy freedoms they are trying to diminish?

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Munira Wilson and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Munira Wilson]

Q Ruth, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to implement, if necessary, profit capping on private providers of children’s care homes and fostering agencies. It is very clear that there is a huge amount of profiteering. Do you think that is the right way to go about tackling the issue, and what could it mean for sufficiency of places?

Ruth Stanier: We very strongly support those measures in the Bill, and we have been calling for them for some time. Just creating the powers sends such an important signal to the market in and of itself, but should it not have the desired impact, we hope the Department will go on to put regulations in place. The level of costs has just spiralled out of control, leaving councils in an absolutely impossible situation, so it is excellent that these measures are being brought forward.

We very much welcome the measures in the Bill to put in place greater oversight of providers, because clearly there is that risk of collapse, which could have catastrophic impacts on children in those placements. This will not solve the problems with sufficiency in the number of placements, and we continue to work closely with the Department on measures to tackle that.

[Amanda Martin]

Q With your experiences in mind, do you think it is right that local authorities that want to open new schools can currently only seek proposals for academies? Under the Bill, they will be able to invite proposals for other types of school. What implications do you think that will have for pupils?

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome this measure, which we have long called for. Councils continue to have the duty to ensure that places are available for all local children, and having the flexibility to bring forward new maintained schools, where that is appropriate, is clearly helpful.

Andy Smith: ADCS’s view is that the education system must absolutely be rooted in place, and directors of children’s services and local officers know their places really well. The measures in the Bill around direction of academy schools are a welcome addition. The end to the legal presumption that new schools will become academies, and allowing proposals from local authorities and others, is very welcome. Local authorities understand planning really well, and they understand their place and their children really well. I think that will ultimately be better for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

Q Absolutely. Could I follow up on the Minister’s question on kinship? You say you support relatives being involved in looking after children. It is great that a local offer is going to be published by every local authority, but every local authority has a different offer, frankly. What more do we think we could be doing to ensure that more kinship carers can step up and support children who would otherwise end up in local authority care?

Jacky Tiotto: Well, I think we have to go back to the needs of the children, and they are pretty significant. In large part, when a local authority becomes involved on behalf of the state, they are worried: there will be matters of children not going to school, or them being at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation. There will be some quite serious issues in their lives if they are older children; if they are younger children, not so much so, but nevertheless the kinship carer’s life will not continue in the way it had before, in terms of their ability to work, maybe, or where they live.

We know that local authorities are under huge resource pressure, so there is going to have to be something a bit stronger to encourage people to become carers, whether that is related to housing or the cost of looking after those children. People will want to do the right thing, but if you already have three kids of your own that becomes tricky. It has to be about resource and support—not just financial support, but access to much better mental health support for those children and the carers.

[Amanda Martin]

Q I want to take a step back from where you would be involved. What do you think the impact will be of creating the duty of safeguarding partnership to make arrangements to establish a multi-agency child protection team?

Jacky Tiotto: It is a long way back from us, but I was a director of children’s services before this and we were always clamouring to have a much more formal arrangement with the police and with health, so this is a fantastic opportunity to get that resourced and to put child protection formally back on the platform where it was, which is multi-agency. We have “Working Together”, which is the best multi-agency guidance in the world, but it has been hard to express without mandation. So thumbs up!