Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

I rise in support of new clause 23, tabled in my name, which seeks to extend mandatory relationships, sex and health education to all young people aged 16 to 18 in further education, sixth form and apprenticeship settings. RSHE is currently compulsory only to the end of key stage 4, when students are 16 years old, but young people remain in education or training until the age of 18. That creates a dangerous gap, in which thousands of young people are left without the vital education they need to stay safe and informed during a crucial and vulnerable period of their lives.

Government data paints a stark picture. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 16 to 19-year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group, with 8% reporting incidents in the past year. That is precisely the age when young people are beginning to explore intimate relationships—a time when they need guidance on recognising coercive control, domestic abuse and harmful behaviours.

We all know the tragic consequences of ignoring that gap. The recent case of Kyle Clifford, who murdered Carol, Louise and Hannah Hunt after reportedly being influenced by the misogynistic views of Andrew Tate, reminds us that toxic narratives can take root when young people are unable to access to reliable and positive education about healthy relationships and respect. That topic has also been powerfully explored in the new Netflix series “Adolescence” by Stephen Graham, which addresses the impact of misogynistic and harmful ideologies, particularly among vulnerable young people. The series, which I recommend to everyone, highlights how a lack of proper education in relationships and self-worth can leave young people susceptible to dangerous and controlling behaviour.

Put simply, we cannot allow harmful voices to fill the vacuum that education should occupy. Education is not just important; it is lifesaving. Providing young people with clear lessons on consent, coercive control and domestic abuse would give them the tools to identify harmful behaviour and seek help when they need it. Without that, we leave young people across the country vulnerable to manipulation, abuse and harm.

Survivors have bravely shared their stories, illustrating the tragic cost of inaction. Faustine Petron, a survivor who founded the “Make It Mandatory” campaign, has spoken powerfully about how education could have changed her life. Having experienced domestic abuse at just 16, she said:

“If I had received mandatory education on healthy relationships and coercive control in sixth form, I truly believe I would have recognised the signs of abuse earlier and sought support—before it escalated into four years of serious violence. Those are years I can never get back. Years when I should have just been a child.”

Another parent who supported the 100,000-strong online petition shared their heartbreak:

“My daughter ended her life in January 2022, aged 21, because she was in a coercive and controlling relationship and was abused on every level. The perpetrator was the boy she met at school and had known since she was 12 years old.”

And another signatory said:

“I wish I’d known about coercive control at 16 when I entered an abusive relationship and stayed in it for 9 years. I thought that because there was no physical violence, it couldn’t be abuse. Teenagers need educating about this.”

Those stories are not isolated. Reports from the “Everyone’s Invited” platform highlighted that 142 further education and sixth-form colleges in England were named in testimonies of sexual violence. Those shocking accounts demand urgent action.

New clause 23 has broad support. The Women and Equalities Committee recommended such a change in 2023. The chief medical officer, the Children’s Commissioner and organisations such as Brook, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and the Sex Education Forum have all called for RSHE to be extended to 16-to-18 education providers. Ultimately, the new clause is a matter of prevention and protection. It is about giving young people the tools to identify unhealthy relationships, to know where to turn for help, and to foster respect and understanding in their personal lives. By extending RSHE to all young people in education until the age of 18, we can save lives, prevent harm and build a safer society for everyone. That is not just the right thing to do; it is the necessary thing to do.

I urge Members from across the House to support my new clause, as well as new clause 34 in the name of the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which would extend free school meals to all primary school pupils—a campaign that I, alongside other Labour Members, have proudly supported for a long time. It is up to us to ensure that no young person is left behind without the necessary education and food that they need to stay safe, healthy and empowered.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I must confess I am worried about the Education Secretary and her future employment prospects. She may share the confusion of the public and wonder whether the Prime Minister is a socialist or a pragmatist, a tax-and-spend lefty or a quango cutter, a human rights lawyer or a war leader, but Education Ministers seem to have missed the latest McSweeney memo.

While the reformer in the Department for Work and Pensions says she wants to get people off welfare and into work, and the reformer in the Department of Health and Social Care holds up school reform and academies as the model for his changes to the NHS, the luddites in the Education Department are taking a hammer to the machinery that has made English schools the best in the west. This Bill—along with the curriculum review, a weakened Ofsted, the threat to SATs in primary schools, the end of free schools and weaker discipline policies—undoes decades of hard-won reform and higher standards.

It should be obvious that the objective for our school system is higher standards. Of course, Ministers pay lip service to that idea, but their actions belie their words, not just with this Bill but with the appointment of an academic to run the curriculum review who has criticised past Governments’ “obsession with academic achievement.” Standards improved through the years of school reform because Governments put their trust in heads and teachers, parents, and the philanthropists and public servants who sponsored free schools and academies. We followed what we understood from neurological science and research about how children learn, from work on cultural literacy to the knowledge that higher-level skills are dependent on the automatic mastery of lower-level activity. We turned to synthetic phonics, maths mastery, a knowledge-rich curriculum, teacher-led instruction and traditional academic subjects, and watched pupils fly.

When I compare my own education with what my children are taught today, the difference is truly staggering, and yet this Government want to go back to the failed policies of the past and the failed policies that continue to this day in Scotland and Wales, where standards are sadly far lower than in England. We know why: this disastrous journey back is what the unions demand, and it is what those on the left, in their hearts, really want. We heard Labour MPs on Second Reading explicitly rejecting the very concept of academies and demand state-run schools.

Some 80% of secondary schools are now academies. Ofsted says that 87% of them are good or outstanding, even though many were previously failing schools that were made academies to turn them around under new leadership. This intervention has been proved to work. Academy freedoms have given heads the space to make bad schools good. According to the fairer schools index, which takes both academic achievement and socioeconomic background into account, the top five state schools in England are all academies: Steiner academy Hereford, Michaela community school, Mercia school, Eden boys’ school, and Eden girls’ leadership academy. Multi-academy trusts have achieved Progress 8 scores far above the national average, with trusts such as the Harris Federation, United Learning, Star Academies, Delta Academies Trust and Ark all performing strongly.

The Government’s disregard for evidence with the Bill has provoked massive anger among school leaders. The Children’s Commissioner has said that the Government are

“legislating against the things we know work in schools”.

Katharine Birbalsingh, the headteacher at Michaela, has called the Bill “catastrophic”. Sir Dan Moynihan, CEO of the Harris Federation, simply asked:

“Why are we doing this?”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 75, Q160.]

[Interruption] If the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) would like to intervene, he may.

I want to say something about the Bill’s most damaging measures, starting with clause 42, which makes the national curriculum compulsory for all academies. Today, the interim report of the curriculum and assessment review has been published. Just as predicted, the review endorses the Education Secretary’s demand for a curriculum that prioritises non-academic subjects over traditional subjects such as the sciences and geography. Indeed the review throws into doubt the future of the EBacc, which ensures a proper focus on core academic subjects. While there is value to non-academic disciplines, of course, there is only so much time in the school day. Teachers will lose the ability to prioritise what they teach, as well as how, and children risk getting less time in which to learn reading, writing and numeracy skills to an advanced level.

Evidence shows that academies, such as the Laurus Trust, have already found a good balance between academic rigour and extracurricular activities. The Education Policy Institute found that the Laurus Trust’s extracurricular programme led to an attainment 8 score being 6.2 points higher among current pupils than for pupils who attended before the programme began. The point is the trust has the freedom to decide the focus of its extracurricular work.

Centralised control over the curriculum will also undermine school ethos and character. For example, Marine Academy Plymouth has tailored its curriculum around the city’s maritime history and relationship with the sea, and we should be encouraging innovation, not conformity—or “consistency” as I hear Ministers euphemistically call it.

Clauses 41, 46 and 47 remove flexibility over teacher qualifications, pay, and conditions, but giving academies freedom over how they recruit, train, and develop staff has led to impressive results. Michaela hires teachers with little or no experience but then gives them training based on its own ethos. Dixons Trinity Academy and King’s Leadership Academy have done similar. And the Government are not extending the requirement in clause 41 to recruit QTS—qualified teacher status—teachers to further education, university technical colleges, studio schools, non-maintained schools, and early years provision, so why impose it on academies?

I share the concerns expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) regarding clause 50. This new amendment will give local authorities the power to overrule headteachers and block school expansion and even mandate the number of pupils attending an academy. This would give local politicians the power to starve academies of pupils and promote their preferred locally controlled schools. This would cut some school budgets and could even lead to closures. Instead of letting parents decide which schools thrive, this is a return to failed command-and-control statism. As roll numbers fall, clause 50 will put huge power into the hands of often very ideological politicians, and for those who doubt this danger, those of us who worked with free school founders know the games councils have played with land hurriedly sold and planning applications refused to stop new schools opening.

A couple of months ago in this House the Prime Minister called academies a Labour achievement. He said:

“Academies are here to stay, and will continue to drive up standards. That is what the Bill is about.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 998.]

But if he really meant that, I honestly wonder whether he has read, or understood, the Bill at all.

I am afraid the Education Secretary and her team, however, know exactly what they are doing. Their ideology blinds them to evidence and leaves them deaf to advice from those who know what they are talking about. This is why Ministers cannot admit the success of English schools in the PISA and TIMSS international rankings.

[Catherine McKinnell]

indicated dissent.

[Nick Timothy]

The Minister gave me a frown but she can intervene and admit the success of English schools in those rankings if she wishes.

It is why, when Michaela was once again selected—[Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? No, apparently not. It is why, when Michaela was once again the best-ranked school in the country for progress, the Secretary of State could not bring herself even to congratulate Katherine Birbalsingh when I invited her to do so from these Benches. It is why the Education Secretary’s special adviser briefed the newspapers that Ms Birbalsingh is a liar, and why he briefed the newspapers against Amanda Spielman, former head of Ofsted, attacking her very personally as a “failure” and a Conservative.

As Margaret Thatcher, not just a former Prime Minister but a former Education Secretary, once said:

“If they attack you personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

And this is the truth: the Education Secretary does not have a single political argument for this disgraceful act of policy vandalism, but she is determined to ignore those who know better than her and push on. And the people who lose out, I am afraid, will be the children, from ordinary working families the length and breadth of the country, denied the best we can give them, unaware that a better and brighter future has been stolen from them thanks to nothing more than vindictive left-wing dogma.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which delivers on the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The Bill will drive high and rising standards in school, cut the cost of sending children to school for my constituents and make life easier for families in my area. Its landmark reforms to safeguarding and children’s social care will stop children from falling through the cracks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

The hon. Lady is right to identify the disadvantage gaps that exist in many parts of the country, and the challenge in her part of the country. We believe that local authorities have an important role to play, working with trust leaders and others to drive up standards. That is why, through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are bringing forward measures to ensure that the system works together more effectively, including in areas such as admissions and place planning.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

5. When she expects the interim report on the curriculum and assessment review to be published.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Under the Tories, young people felt underprepared for their futures, and employers agreed that too many were leaving school lacking the skills needed in the modern workplace and ill-equipped for an ever-changing world. Through the independent curriculum and assessment review, Labour will bring forward a cutting-edge curriculum that ensures that all our children leave school ready for work and for life. The interim report will be published in the spring.

[Nick Timothy]

Parents and pupils will think that Ministers are on another planet when they hear such answers. SATs in years 2 and 6 mean that primary schools can be held accountable, and that we can measure progress data through secondary education, but the National Education Union says that SATs “do not benefit learning” and wants the Government to abolish them. Will the Minister rule out abolishing SATs in primary schools—yes or no?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Assessment clearly has an important role to play in supporting achievement and development within schools. We will consider how the reformed curriculum and assessment will affect schools. We recognise the importance of supporting schools through any changes that come forward in the interim and final report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I know that my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for children with special educational needs and disabilities in her constituency, and I am happy to meet her to discuss the issue.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Children’s Commissioner says that the Government are

“legislating against the things we know work in schools”.

Katharine Birbalsingh says the schools Bill is “catastrophic”. Sir Dan Moynihan asks:

“Why are we doing this?”.

Why does the Education Secretary think that she knows more about education than the Children’s Commissioner, the head of the best school in the country, and the head of the best multi-academy trust?

[Bridget Phillipson]

This Labour Government are determined to deliver high and rising standards for all our children. The Conservatives left 1,000 failing schools, continuing to let down more than 400,000 children. They left one in three children leaving primary school without a firm foundation in English and maths, and one in five children regularly out of school. If they want to debate their record, I will do it any day of the week.

Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate and for laying out some of the problems with the current system very clearly.

The Liberal Democrats are clear in our commitment to reforming the UK’s work visa system. We believe in creating a system that supports our country and economy while ensuring that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. The system should be fairer and more humane, and it should allow us to attract and retain the workers we need.

A critical problem with the current system is the exploitation of migrant workers, who are often trapped in vulnerable working conditions that are particularly prevalent in the social care sector. The Liberal Democrats have a comprehensive plan to address that exploitation. We would establish a single enforcement body to combat modern slavery and worker exploitation, a measure the previous Government long promised, but failed to deliver. The body would ensure that all workers, regardless of their terms of employment, are protected from abuse and are treated fairly.

Undoubtedly, the problem has been exacerbated by policies such as the ban on bringing dependants for people who come here on health and care worker visas. This is a cruel measure placed on those working to save lives, and it should be reversed.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I was slightly surprised by what the hon. Lady just said. Can she just repeat, so I understand correctly, that the Liberal Democrat policy is to reinstate the ability for people coming on the health and social care visa to bring dependants, knowing that that on average each person on that visa brought more than one dependant and the ratio was more than 1:1 throughout its operation?

[Lisa Smart]

It is a delight to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on such an important issue. We would not continue with the current visa structure and I will go on to explain what we would do. We believe, as a number of people do, that the system put in place by the previous Government is cruel. It is cruel for workers to allegedly be welcomed here, but not with their dependants, whether those are children or other dependants. We feel that we should be welcoming to families who want to play an important role in our society, such as by doing the job of a health and care worker—so yes, we would change the policy fundamentally: for a thriving, integrated society we should welcome families, not just workers, on these visas.

We should not forget the extraordinary sacrifices that NHS nurses, doctors and care staff have made and continue to make. I see it for myself at Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove, at our nursing homes and care homes, such as Cherry Tree House in Romiley, and with those domiciliary care workers who go into the homes of our most vulnerable neighbours to give them the care that they need. Those workers face immense pressure in the face of record waiting times and difficult, draining roles. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for better support for those vital workers, including those who come from overseas.

We would exempt NHS and care staff from the annual £1,000 immigration skills charge to recognise the invaluable contributions they bring. We should be valuing and cherishing our health and care workers. The Government should, as I have said, reverse the ban on visa holders bringing dependants with them. The policy needlessly separates families and discourages talented individuals from coming to the UK.

If the previous Government had valued care workers as the skilled professionals that they are, they would not have needed to rely so heavily on overseas recruitment. That is why the Lib Dems propose the introduction of a carer’s minimum wage, which would make it easier to recruit and retain domestic workers in this vital sector.

While the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship may address some issues, we believe the root of the problem lies in our flawed visa system. We Lib Dems are clear: we can and we should have a fair and compassionate visa system that protects workers from overseas—but that cannot be achieved by tinkering around the edges.

Ultimately, the UK needs a flexible, merit-based system for work visas, allowing the Government to work closely with each sector to ensure that those skilled workers will fill the skills gaps in the UK economy. That includes abandoning the arbitrary salary threshold for skilled worker visas dreamed up by the previous Government, which not only drives skilled workers away, but deepens existing workforce shortages, especially in the health and social care sectors. A merit-based system would recognise the unique needs of different industries and the vital contributions made by workers at all levels of the economy. For example, many roles in social care and the NHS are essential, but do not meet the current salary thresholds, leaving critical positions unfilled.

By focusing on skills rather than arbitrary financial benchmarks, we can build a system that not only attracts talent, but encourages long-term retention, allowing workers to build lives and contribute meaningfully to our, and their, local communities. The Liberal Democrats share the goal of creating a visa system that prevents exploitation and fills workforce gaps, but that needs to be done through comprehensive reforms rather than simple, limited measures. A truly effective system must be compassionate, adaptable and designed to meet the needs of workers as well as of our economy. By focusing on systematic change, we can build a visa system that not only protects workers from exploitation, but ensures that critical workforce gaps are filled in a sustainable way.

Family Visas: Income Requirement

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra]

I am sure that those issues will have been raised in the responses that have come to the Migration Advisory Committee. It is right that the MAC is reviewing how the current financial requirements are operating, including looking at the impact on family units. It is important to mention that both the immigration fees and the immigration health surcharge may be waived based on what the applicant can afford.

I will briefly mention those who work for His Majesty’s armed forces in relation to the immigration rules. I note that the previous Government laid immigration rules in March 2024 that brought the MIR for His Majesty’s armed forces, including the Brigade of Gurkhas and the Royal Air Force partner route, in line with the armed forces salary threshold on completion of training, which was £23,496 for the 2023-24 financial year. That no longer includes an additional income requirement to sponsor a child. Tethering the MIR to the armed forces salary threshold takes into account the unique nature of their service, the armed forces covenant and the recruitment and retention of the armed forces in order to maintain national security.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of the debate.

Immigration and Nationality Statistics

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I will call Nick Timothy to move the motion and, later, the Minister to respond. I think it has been agreed that a number of other Members will make short contributions to the debate.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered immigration and nationality statistics.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Mundell—happy Christmas to you, the Clerks and other House staff.

I want to make clear my overall view of the rate and nature of immigration to Britain in recent years. To be frank, it has been a disgrace. Every Prime Minister since Tony Blair has promised control, only to oversee record numbers of people coming here. Immigration is the biggest broken promise in British politics, and probably the biggest single reason that British politics is so broken. This could not be more important, because mass immigration undermines our economy, capital stock, and cultural coherence and identity. It quite literally changes the country we are.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I think the issue that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on, and probably most Members in this Chamber will agree on, is that there are two categories: those who are fleeing their countries on human rights grounds and because of the persecution of their religious beliefs, who should go through the system, and economic migrants—those who are young and healthy, and who jump on the boat at Calais and come across. Those are ones we need to stop. Does he agree?

[Nick Timothy]

I certainly agree that most people crossing the channel are not really seeking refuge, because they are coming from a safe country: France. They are seeking their economic betterment, which may be legitimate from their perspective, but is not necessarily in our interests as a country.

I must be honest: my party played its part in this policy failure. I say “policy failure” because, at times—certainly when I worked in the Home Office and, I think, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was in the Home Office—there was a genuine attempt to get the numbers down. Indeed, back in those years, the numbers fell, but ultimately we failed, thanks to free movement rules, a loss of wider political support for our work across Government, and a failure to reform the higher and further education system, public services and the wider economy, so as to get off the addiction to more and more migration.

Brexit should have changed all that. It was a clear vote not only to reclaim our sovereignty, but to reduce and control immigration, but the points-based system that followed, with its hugely liberal rules, was always bound to increase the numbers dramatically. For that, my party will need to show sincere contrition and, if we are ever to win again, demonstrate to the public that we truly get it and have a plan to cut immigration drastically.

To inform the policy choices we face and help us to understand what we must do with the millions of newcomers who have started new lives here in the past 25 years or so, we also need much better data. Low-paid immigrants bring costs that are not adequately considered by Government impact assessments. They need housing, drive on roads, use transport, have health needs, take school places, claim benefits and eventually receive the state pension, which was recently valued by an actuary at £250,000 per person. Most immigrants and their dependants will, over their lifetimes, be net recipients of public funds.

However, the British state does not even try to calculate the net fiscal costs and benefits of different profiles of migrant. We get fragments of information from, say, the census, or prison statistics. We know that 72% of Somalis here, for example, live in social housing, compared with 16% of the population overall. We know that one in 50 Albanians here are in prison, and that nationalities such as Iraqis, Jamaicans and Somalis are disproportionately likely to be criminals. We know from now-discontinued income tax data that some nationalities, such as Bangladeshis, receive more in child benefit and tax credits than they pay in income tax and national insurance. That does not even include the costs of education, housing, healthcare, pensions, and other effects on infrastructure and services.

Some European countries have started to do the necessary work. In Denmark, for example, official figures show that Danes and Europeans are net contributors, but migrants and their descendants from the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey are net recipients throughout their whole lives, including when they are working.

I have asked various Ministers in oral and written questions whether the Government will commission work to establish the true cost of immigration broken down by profile of migrant. The answer that comes back more often than not is that that has not been done before. However, that is not a reason not to do it now. My first question to the Minister is: if it is not to be done, why not? Can she give us a justification?

I have asked similar questions on specific aspects of policy. The Department for Work and Pensions told me in a letter that

“we are investigating the feasibility of developing and publishing statistics on the immigration status of non-UK/Irish”

nationals, or “customers”, as it bizarrely calls foreign benefits claimants. My second question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the DWP about that? When will that work be completed? Will the data be broken down by nationality, visa route and type of benefit?

We know bits of information on social housing from the census, as I said, but that is not good enough. Only yesterday, a grotesque online video was published by Westminster city council promoting social housing in Arabic, Bengali, Spanish and French, which, given the rules around no recourse to public funds, I found somewhat surprising. My third question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that? Can we get annual data on social housing occupation by nationality, visa and asylum status?

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some excellent work on the issue of data and immigration has been done by our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who has been a cheerleader for getting the kind of information that would help us inform public policy? As he is talking about social housing, does he share my concerns that the Labour Government seem to be moving away from some of the provisions we put in place to prioritise British people for housing?

[Nick Timothy]

I endorse that entirely and pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) for the excellent work he has done. He was the first Member of this House to talk about what he calls the “data desert” when it comes to immigration.

On criminal justice policy, the Justice Secretary very recently refused to answer in the Chamber when I asked if the Government would publish the nationality, visa and asylum status of all imprisoned offenders. My fourth question is: why did she refuse to do that? Why can the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice not come together to publish that data?

There are many other areas of policy, but I want to turn to the Home Office in particular. The Home Secretary told the House of Commons in July that the Rwanda policy had cost the taxpayer £700 million by the time Labour had come to power and that by ending the retrospective element of the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, she would save the public £7 billion over 10 years. Those numbers were clearly preposterous, and Home Office officials got in touch with me to express their concern about the things she said on the Floor of the House. The National Audit Office had said in March that the Rwanda scheme’s total cost was only £290 million, which included a £50 million payment made between its study and the general election. To be fair, the NAO costs did not include some things, such as the cost of detaining migrants. However, those costs would have had to have been met without the Rwanda scheme anyway, and it is difficult to understand what might justify a £410 million difference between what the NAO said and what the Home Secretary said on the Floor of the House of Commons.

In a letter to the shadow Home Secretary copied to me, the Home Office permanent secretary gave a breakdown—if it can be called a breakdown—of the costs behind the £700 million claim that ludicrously lumped together £278 million under the title “Other fixed costs” with very little description of what that means. My fifth question is: can the Minister tell us specifically what those costs are? Will she hand over all the relevant data to the Office for Statistics Regulation? Can she commit to placing in the Library a detailed set of accounts to justify that number?

In a separate letter to me, the permanent secretary justified the discrepancy by claiming that the NAO report had not included some “expected” Home Office costs. That makes no sense because “expected” implies costs that had not been incurred in March when the NAO report was published, but the Home Office now says that those costs were incurred between 2022-23 and June in 2024-25. In his letter to me, Sir Matthew said:

“Further detail is contained within the impact assessment that accompanied the retrospection statutory instrument that was laid before Parliament.”

But again, the impact assessment models costs in the future, not the past, so I have a sixth question. When the Home Secretary said that the £700 million had already been spent in July, why was her permanent secretary talking about prospective costs in August? Why did he refer to an impact assessment based on future costs, not costs already incurred?

On my seventh question, when the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), debated this issue with me in Westminster Hall in September, she promised to write to me to explain those discrepancies. Why did she not do so? Can the Minister tell us why the Home Secretary still has not replied to my letter of 21 September, despite written answers on 22 October and 25 November promising to do so as soon as possible?

Finally, I have asked Ministers in the Home Office and the Foreign Office about the secretive deal to bring Sri Lankan asylum seekers from Diego Garcia to Britan, even though the Government are under no obligation to do so. Home Office officials are worried that among those migrants are criminals and even child abusers. The Home Office said:

“Migrants with criminal convictions, charges, or subject to ongoing investigations were not in scope for that relocation.”

However, in a written answer to me, the immigration Minister refused to say whether the Government had sought or obtained the necessary information from the Sri Lankan Government. On 14 November, the Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), answered my question, saying that the Government

“does not have any information about Sri Lankan migrants’ criminality that pre-dates their arrival on British Indian Ocean Territory.”

On 9 December, the immigration Minister answered another of my questions and said:

“The local UK police force in the area where the migrants have been located have been informed of their arrival in the UK.”

That does not sound very reassuring, and there are clear discrepancies between what the Home Office and Foreign Office have said. The fact that the police have had to be notified about the arrival of those migrants would be very alarming to people who live in those areas, if the public actually knew where those migrants are.

For my eighth and final question, can the Minister confirm that the Government have no idea about the criminal records of those migrants dating to their time in Sri Lanka? What on earth are the Government doing importing migrants, for whom we have no legal responsibility, into this country in such secrecy when there are concerns about them inside the Home Office, and without undertaking every conceivable security check?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. This debate is for a fixed 30-minute period. I will call each of the three Members who have asked to speak, but I will apply a time limit of three minutes to their contributions. I call Richard Tice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. As I understand it, when he was in the Home Office, the Conservative Government had a target of 100,000 net migration a year. Clearly, the Conservative Government spectacularly failed in that undertaking, so it is fascinating to me that they are keen to draw attention to this issue, when it is one of their poorest legacies.

[Nick Timothy]

I am entertained by the idea that special advisers are so important that they might be able to control outcomes such as this. If the hon. Member thinks that is the case, he might ask the Minister to invite one of the Home Office’s special advisers to take part in parliamentary debates.

[Chris Murray]

Well, thanks for that.

Turning to the issues the hon. Gentleman raised, on data collection, the ONS has significantly improved the immigration data we have in the last couple of years, particularly since the pandemic, by shifting away from the international passenger survey to things like Home Office and DWP administrative data. Is he aware of the Migration Advisory Committee report that came out yesterday that talks about the fiscal contributions and net impact of those coming through the skilled worker visa? It shows a net positive impact.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of other fixed costs for Rwanda, but the Home Office documentation is pretty clear on what that means. It means the things like digital and IT, legal costs and staff costs required to operationalise the Rwanda scheme. This information is all in the public domain, so I am perplexed as to why we are having a debate on it: I think it reflects the fact that the Conservatives have absolutely failed to understand why they got immigration policy so wrong when they were in government and why they failed to address the immigration challenges we have in the UK. The debate focuses not on the impact on communities or the economy, just the numbers overall. For years, the Conservatives focused on a net migration target that they spectacularly failed to meet again and again, and never tried to look at the impact of migration on communities.

It is so obvious that migrants are a vast range of different people. Different migrants will have different impacts in the different communities where they settle. There is a huge difference between adding some EU workers to parts of England that have never seen any immigration and having new immigration in big cities that have long histories and structures of absorbing immigration. We need to understand that our communities experience impacts differently.

We also need to think about the churn of immigration. There are two types of immigrants. Some will come, stay here, settle, learn English and get jobs, and, yes, over time they will turn into—just like any other British person—someone who uses public services sometimes but contributes to the tax base at other times. We have a model where we have high levels of churn in the immigration system. People will come and work for a couple of years, leave after they have learned English and got to know how the system works here and be replaced by new immigrants from overseas. It is not just about the number of net migrants in the country but the churn and lack of integration that we see.

Think about Madeleine Albright and her family who fled the Nazis. They first came to Britain and then went to the US as refugees. Madeleine Albright said that in Britain people said, “You are welcome here. How long until you leave?” Whereas in America they said, “You are welcome here. How long until you become a citizen?” We have no discussion about the trajectory we want to see migrants travel: integrating into our communities and contributing. We are stuck in a discussion about numbers and overall statistics that leaves the public utterly cold. I have run out of time, but it is fascinating to see that the Conservatives have not learned any lessons from the last 15 years of their migration mistakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make some remarks; I know the hon. Lady has already contributed.

That is why we are pursuing a new approach to end the overreliance on international recruitment by ensuring that the immigration, skills and training systems are properly aligned in a way they have not previously been. Further details of our plans to reduce net migration will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper. I am sure the hon. Member for West Suffolk will want to contribute and bring his own experience in government, which I do respect. I am sure he will also want to engage on how we build the solutions and the architecture that we need for a new part of how Government works, working across the Home Office, skills and our future needs, as well as on how we ensure that we are supporting migrants into work, which is also part of the role of the DWP.

Let me turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. It is worth saying that the issue of dangerous small boat crossings has been a phenomenon of the last five or six years. There has been an increase from 300 people coming in 2018 to an average of over 36,000 a year in the last three years—a 120-fold increase. We cannot deny that, in a few short years, an entire criminal smuggler industry has been built around boat crossings, and that has also been allowed to take hold across the UK border. The cost of the asylum system also increased by more than five times to £5.4 billion between 2019-20 and last year. Returns of those with no right to be here are 30% lower than they were in 2010, and asylum-related returns were down by 20% compared with 14 years ago. That was the legacy we inherited from the previous Government, and former Ministers themselves have admitted it was shameful.

On the calls for more data, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics publish a very wide range of statistical information on a regular basis. Our country’s statisticians, and those working in my Department and other Departments, are in fact world leaders in the production of statistics and analysis on the topic of migration. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the UK publishes, I believe, more statistics on migration than any other country. The content and presentation of official statistics is kept under review and that regular oversight allows us to balance the production of regular statistics with the need to develop new statistics and statistical products for future release. We remain committed to the issues of transparency and ensuring that public and parliamentary debates are informed by robust and accurate statistics, and to keeping statistics under review.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk raised a few comments on some of his correspondence and it would be helpful to refer to some of that. I assure him that the Home Office has received his letter of 1 September and is due to respond in due course. The breakdown of £700 million in costs, which the hon. Member inquired about, has been published on gov.uk and sets out the cost of the Rwanda partnership and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which were inseparable. The purpose of the IMA was to prevent individuals arriving in the UK from remaining here, and Rwanda was intended to be a vehicle for enabling that. To try and separate them is deliberately misrepresenting the true cost of what was clearly a failed policy.

[Nick Timothy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman can come back in a moment.

The proposal to send asylum applicants to Rwanda was impractical, costly and would not have worked to reduce irregular migration. We believe in dealing with these issues with common sense in the work we have been undertaking: making sure we have a new Border Security Command and Border Security Commander, working upstream, building new partnerships with other countries and doing that in order to also disrupt the supply chains of criminal gangs, who the hon. Member for West Suffolk knows are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We will continue to spend taxpayer money on real solutions such as breaking the business models of those criminal gangs. In fact, when we made it clear that the Rwanda partnership would come to an end, we saw, for example, the repurposing of two flights provisionally booked for Rwanda, which were used to return a number of individuals to their home countries instead.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I appreciate that she has been given a hospital pass by the immigration Minister, who really ought to be the person here, but last time she was, she did not give a very good account of herself, and has been avoiding writing letters or giving any of the numbers that the Opposition have been asking for.

The statement—which was obviously pre-prepared, and I understand how these things work—does not address any of the questions that I raised in my speech. It is not true that we are world leaders in the collection of statistics that relate to immigration. Anyway, the questions related not to overall levels of net migration from particular countries and so on, but to things such as the nationality and immigration status of criminals and imprisoned criminals, or people living in social housing or in receipt of benefits. We do not have any information on that, and if we are compared to some European countries such as Denmark or the Netherlands, a study from which shows that the average asylum migrant costs something like £400,000 net over their lifetimes, we are nowhere. Can the Minister give us a quick answer on that?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said, we do keep our statistics under review. He will also know that a lot of research on the cost and benefit of migration has been done by the Migration Advisory Committee, and its annual report, published this week, is another example of the work it is doing, with its capacity expanding to help us address some of the challenges of bringing net migration down alongside having a more coherent policy for how we do that across Government. Indeed, the recent estimate of the average contribution of skilled workers is also demonstrated in the report.

I will make this point before I finish: the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the Ministry of Justice does publish data on foreign national offenders in the UK in its official statistics. He will also know that we have seen a 21% increase in foreign criminals being removed from the UK, compared to the same period last year. That sends a clear message to foreign criminals that if they break the law, they will not be allowed to stay in the UK.

I recognise the importance of the debate and the issues that have been raised today. I thank the hon. Member for raising them and we will respond to him in due course.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

The Government are committed to rolling out school-based nurseries. I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues further.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I assure the Education Secretary that we are very positive about schooling in this country. I am sure that she will want to thank all school leaders for their work to help English schools to soar up the rankings for the programme for international student assessment and programme for international student assessment rankings—PISA and TIMMS—but will she join me in sending personal congratulations to Katharine Birbalsingh, whose approach to discipline, the curriculum and teacher-led instruction makes her school Michaela the best in the country?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I will always celebrate the fantastic work of our school leaders and teachers, because they are how we will drive high and rising standards across our school system. The hon. Gentleman and I probably have more in common than he realises. He might recognise these words:

“The greatest injustice in Britain today is that your life is still largely determined not by your efforts and talents but by where you come from, who your parents are and what schools you attend. This is wrong.”

They are taken from the 2017 Conservative manifesto, which he was involved in writing. This Government will right those wrongs and break the link between background—

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

11. What recent progress the independent curriculum and assessment review has made.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

19. What progress the independent curriculum and assessment review has made.

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

Our independent curriculum and assessment review was launched in July. It will support our ambition for high and rising standards for all, and for a broader curriculum with an excellent foundation in the core subjects. The review has launched its call for evidence, and there is still time to participate. The review will publish its interim report in early 2025, with final recommendations in autumn 2025.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this important area, which has been raised by many Members in the past. I am sure the review will carefully consider what financial education young people need to meet that aim, and it will, of course, consider what support we need to provide to enable teachers to teach the reformed curriculum successfully.

[Nick Timothy]

I think parents will be quite alarmed by the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer), as it had very little focus on academic attainment. The Education Secretary appointed Becky Francis, who attacked the Blair Government for their obsession with academic achievement. The National Education Union denies that school accountability should be at the heart of our assessment system, which is wrong, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to rule out scrapping SATs in year 6?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I rather fear that the hon. Gentleman and his party have learned nothing from the massive defeat inflicted upon them by voters in July. I can assure this House that the review will be evidence-based and will not seek to fix things that are not broken. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that his record is a SEND system in crisis, one in five children persistently absent from school—they cannot learn if they are not there—falling standards, a persistent disadvantage gap, and over half of disadvantaged pupils in state primary schools not leaving with the required standards in English and maths. He might be proud of that record, but I am not.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The visit to that school in my hon. Friend’s constituency was wonderful. The school is one of many examples of the provision of inclusive mainstream education. We need such provision to be in schools in every community and available to every child. She rightly recognises the challenges of co-ordinating between health services and education provision, and the vital importance of those systems working together to achieve outcomes for children. I will certainly take away her specific suggestion and share it with my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Parents in my constituency are not interested in what the Minister thinks about the Conservative party. They may recall that EHCPs were introduced under the coalition Government. They want us to work together to make things better. We all know that a problem with EHCPs has led to a tripling of costs for county councils. In the Westminster Hall debate that the Minister took part in with me recently, she was much more constructive than she is being today, and I would like to believe that that is the approach that she wants to take to these issues. Does she have a timescale for the reform of EHCPs?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I will always work cross-party with colleagues to achieve the best for all children in this country, but levelling the blame for the current situation at a Government only five months old cannot be accepted; the inheritance that we have taken on cannot be underestimated. We will continue to work on putting right what has been failing for the past 14 years, and the Department for Education is moving at pace on work to that end. We will make specific suggestions for legislative changes, and for any other necessary systemic changes, in due course.

Universities: Freedom of Speech

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, I give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. It is for that reason that we are pausing and making sure that we get this legislation right. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are too important to approach in anything other than a considered, pragmatic and consensual way.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s constructive tone. She says that she does not want this to be a culture war issue. When the pause was announced by the Secretary of State, special advisers in her Department described the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to the media as a Tory “hate speech charter”. Will the Minister disown those comments?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I have been very clear that we need to take a constructive approach and to listen to all views on this issue. We need to protect freedom of speech and academic expression, and that includes robust debate where necessary and challenging views that we may not want to hear. We are listening and we are determined to get this right.