Higher Education Funding

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for the way in which she introduced the debate. Sheffield University was the first place I visited outside Scotland; I think the Red Deer pub, which is right next to the university, was the first English pub I ever went into.

Before I was elected to this place, I worked in the university sector for 20 years in Scotland. Our universities are among Scotland’s biggest assets. Across the sector, there is incredible innovation. Each year, our universities attract the very best staff and students from across the world. I always say that any country serious about its economy should be serious about its universities. It is great to see our Prime Minister putting universities at the heart of the triple helix model that he talks about so often. In a debate in Westminster Hall 18 months ago, I quoted the then president of NUS Scotland, who warned that Scotland’s education system was “crumbling”. At that time, I hoped our words would prompt the Scottish Government into action. Sadly, they did not, and Scotland’s sector has lurched from crisis to crisis.

Undergraduate university education in Scotland is free, but the sector is grossly underfunded. Broadly speaking, funding per undergraduate student in Scotland is well over £2,000 less per student compared with universities in England. That means less money for facilities and staff wages. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of UCU and have an ongoing connection with Heriot-Watt University. Because of the huge stresses on the sector, there is industrial action at, I think, six universities in Scotland right now. Industrial action at one university might suggest a local issue, but when it is happening across the country it suggests that the Government need to step up and do something about it.

In my constituency, both Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot-Watt are internationally recognised institutions. They are home to dedicated staff, ambitious students and world-leading research, but both face serious challenges. In the past year, there has been talk of compulsory redundancies and course reductions. There are similar issues at Edinburgh University, which is outside my constituency, but quite a lot of staff and students are based in Edinburgh South West. This situation cannot continue. We need the Scottish Government to bring together universities, staff, students and trade unions to agree a way forward.

I want to talk briefly about immigration. During my time at Heriot-Watt, I worked alongside fantastic academics from around the world. Next door to my office, on one side I had Professor Adebayo Adeloye from Nigeria, and on the other I had Benny Suryanto, who came from Indonesia. Our students are lucky that these people choose to come to the UK. I felt lucky that students came from around the world to spend time in Edinburgh and enjoy its education and the opportunities that provides.

I am concerned that the Government are making it harder for both staff and students to come here. If we are serious about growing our economy, we have to recognise the benefits that universities provide, both nationally and locally in our towns and cities. It would be great to hear what is happening inside the Government to support universities and ensure that they can thrive. In Scotland, their funding is largely a matter for the Scottish Government, but I think the UK Government could do more to support the immigration status of students and staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate.

Southampton is home to two excellent universities and yet in my constituency, only 7% of kids on free school meals will hold a degree by the time they are 22. Of those who do not receive free school meals in Itchen, just 19% will get there. If we go a few miles up the road to Winchester, however, that become 39%. We must make sure that higher education is not shut down as an option for young people. In my speech, I will focus on three points that are becoming worryingly clear about the funding system as it stands: it is not working for students, it is not working for universities, and—I fear—it is working only for the Treasury. I do not believe that is what this Labour Government are about.

First, on students, I was the first in my family lucky enough to go to university. I started in 2000 when fees were—wait for it—£1,025. My annual loan was about £3,500. We looked enviously on the generation before us, who did not pay fees and who received a grant to go to university. This generation is looking enviously on my generation, which is worrying. I went on to spend 20 years as university lecturer, so I saw every subsequent wave of student finance agreements. The Treasury Committee has concluded that we were essentially mis-selling some of the previous loan agreements on terms that no commercial lender would ever be allowed to offer.

[Dr Arthur]

I know I do not look it, but when I went to university, Margaret Thatcher was still our Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible that funding for students’ day-to-day living costs was better then than it is today.?

[Darren Paffey]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely salient point. Many of us never imagined that we would get to an even worse place, but here we are.

Only the top three earnings deciles of recent intakes will ever pay off their student loans in full. The nurse, the teacher or the engineer on £35,000 will pay 9% for decades and still never clear the balance. Dare I say it, but if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, let us call it a tax and treat it as one. If we properly sort it, it could well be a better deal than the current loan system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate. Sheffield is an excellent place to ground this debate because it has two great examples of the origin stories of many of our universities. The University of Sheffield is a civic university in the truest sense. When it sought its charter in 1904, steelworkers, factory workers and other local people raised over £50,000 in penny donations to support it. Sheffield Hallam traces its roots to the School of Design, which was founded in 1843 to train designers for the city’s industry, and became a university in 1992. One red brick, one post ’92: both serve the city and both embody the idea of universities as anchors of their community. That idea is now at risk.

Later today the Chancellor delivers his first Budget; every signal is that universities should expect very little from it. We cannot continue to ignore the stark choice before us when it comes to university policy. Either we carry on with a managed decline—courses cut, talent lost, places left behind—or we can choose transformation with universities as engines of learning throughout life, as innovation hubs driving economic growth and as civic institutions embedded in the places they serve. The Liberal Democrats would choose transformation, and I hope the Government will do the same.

At the moment, too many universities are fighting for survival. More than a third of English providers were in deficit last year. The Department’s own costing study found that universities lose about £3,000 on every home undergraduate they teach. Research is worse: universities now recover only two thirds of research costs. According to the Russell Group, universities put in £6.3 billion of their own money into research last year.

For many years now, the funding gap has been filled by international students, but that income is now also falling away. Visa applications in August—the peak month—were down by 17% on a year ago. Of course, education as a great British export is about much more than money, but the business model that has saved the Government from spending more on home students and research is being undermined. The Government have said that they intend, in the Finance Bill that will follow today’s Budget, to legislate for a £925 levy on every international student. Only a tiny sliver of that money will go to the maintenance grants put forward as a justification for it.

This crisis does not simply affect an ivory tower elite who sit apart from our communities: in many towns and cities, the university is one of the largest employers and the source of the next generation of teachers, nurses, engineers and members of many other professions. Such universities produce graduates who are likely to stay and work locally and serve the students who are often least able to move away to study. When a nursing course or engineering department closes in such a place, it does not relocate; it disappears from the region. With it goes a route into a profession for everyone who cannot simply up sticks and leave.

Post-’92 universities carry a burden that their older neighbours do not. For no other reason than institutional history, they are tied into the teachers’ pension scheme, for which employer contributions reached 28.7% last year—roughly double what many older universities pay, and about £8,000 extra a year for a typical member of staff. In July the Government ruled out any help, but part of solving this crisis in the sector must include working towards a single, fairer pensions framework.

There is also the question of what happens when one of these institutions does not survive. The Office for Students told the Education Committee that 24 institutions could exit the market within a year. The Committee recommended a special administration regime so that a failing university could keep teaching while its future was resolved, but the Government have said that they are “not currently persuaded” because legislating would be too complex. I would say that that is an argument for starting now, not for doing nothing.

Further education colleges have had a special regime since 2019, and having no regime has its own risks. With no orderly way to fail, many simply assume that the Government will step in. Sir Philip Augar has said that a handful of universities are already getting secret bail-outs. When I asked Ministers about that, I was told that emergency support is not provided, but also that officials meet universities and their banks regularly in confidence. Discussing potential rescues behind closed doors gives us all the moral hazard and none of the transparency.

Liberal Democrats see universities as essential national infrastructure, not cost centres to be squeezed. That means a new settlement: in the short term, reform the levy before it reaches the statute book; reprofile student loan fee payments to ease the cash flow; offer low-interest loans for restructuring; and remove the VAT penalty that stops universities from sharing back-office services, so that they merge finance and HR rather than cut teaching. We need to fund the breadth of subjects in every region and make sure that public research grants actually cover the 80% of costs that they are supposed to. But this needs to come alongside obligations on universities. The money alone will not fix the problem.

After 2030, the number of 18-year-olds will fall by 17%, yet 82% of the growth in priority occupations in the industrial strategy sectors will require a higher education qualification. Put those two facts together, and a model built around school leavers simply will not work in the long term. Many of those who will fill the jobs in that growth are already in work and will need to retrain as technology reshapes what they do. Universities need to open up to adults through modular lifelong learning, which we suggest needs to be through lifelong skills grants, not simply loans. Universities also need to work hand in hand with further education colleges, with credits that transfer between them, and they need to turn British research into businesses that stay in Britain.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member is diagnosing the problem excellently and detailing all the issues. I do not want to go back too far, but we have to think about the role the Lib Dems played in the coalition Government and the decision to go back on their pledge not to raise fees but instead raise them to £9,000. The Budget this afternoon is not just about spending money; it is also about raising money to pay for policies. A range of policies—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) only has a minute left?

[Dr Arthur]

It would be good to hear how the money would be raised to meet all those obligations.

[Ian Sollom]

A lot of the interventions that I have suggested on the university side are cost-neutral and would involve restructuring.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government update their impact analysis to reflect this year’s fall in international recruitment and publish the effect by region and type of institution of the international student levy before the Finance Bill is debated? Secondly, will they think again about special administration before rather than after a university fails? Thirdly, will the Government commit to working with the sector to end the pensions penalty on post-’92 universities? Universities did not get to this position overnight and they will not recover overnight, but today’s Budget is a chance to stop the managed decline and start the transformation. I hope the Chancellor takes it.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

That is absolutely right. Enforcing a very strict policy is what now needs to happen off the back of the new statutory guidance.

Let me now turn to the issue of social media and the Government’s approach. One of the biggest safeguarding challenges facing children today is social media. If we are serious about protecting children from the extreme and violent content that they encounter online every day, the Government should do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do—protect children online—by voting for change tonight.

Parents are watching and they will not forgive the continued delay. Twice already, Labour Members have voted against a ban. Parents will be forgiven for not only feeling deeply let down, but being quite frankly baffled by what is going on. They have heard the Prime Minister promise action, yet once again he is preparing to lead his party through the Lobby to vote against it. If the Government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Instead, they have chosen to vote against a ban for a third time.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I know that this is an important subject for the right hon. Lady personally, but Labour MPs have not voted against a ban; they have voted for a consultation. They have voted to listen to parents, young people and charities and to learn lessons from what has happened in places such as Australia and Greece. Surely basing this policy on evidence is the right thing to do.

[Laura Trott]

I respect the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the Government consultation is not on how to implement a social media ban, but on whether to do one at all. That is not good enough. It also says in the consultation that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. I do not believe that that is taking the issue seriously, and I do not believe that it commits to firm action. That is why Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us today.

“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Duffield]

Thank you for clearing that up, Mr Stringer. The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points. Sex Matters has been pointing out, especially in its new leaflet, that so many people, whom we do not get to talk about every day, are still being subjected to these ridiculous tribunals. Jennifer Melle, whom the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned, was simply a nurse referring to a biological man as a biological man in her notes. Without wanting to get into too much horrible detail, I believe she was catheterising a man, which is very different from catheterising a woman, yet she was the one subjected to hideous racial abuse and suspended from work.

These things happen every day. We know about them because we are involved with the organisations that help those people, but the general public do not necessarily hear about them and the Government seem very far removed from the reality that not stepping in is causing. Many of those cases would not have taken place if the Government had introduced guidance, spoken on the issue, or had the front to say what I know many of them secretly believe, but do not articulate because they are afraid of their own activists—I am living proof of that. That is a real shame.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I know this is a really important subject to the hon. Lady. Of course, the Government received the revised draft guidance only yesterday and they issued a statement today. It is important to remember that.

The hon. Lady mentioned parkrun a minute or two ago, before the flurry of interventions. What does her vision mean for me, as a keen parkrunner? Would I have to submit evidence that I am a man to parkrun in order to run as a man? Likewise, would women have to do the same? How does she see that working?

[Rosie Duffield]

I think it is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman is a man, to be honest. I think the majority of the human race could tell that. If there is a much smaller person running in that category, they simply do not belong there. The Government have had the guidance since September, but this is the law of this country. No Minister or Government MP needs guidance from the EHRC to suggest ways in which organisations could uphold the law. We made this law, and we are there to advise people how to enact it and adhere to it. We do not need the EHRC. That is just another way of pushing this down the road. It is great to have that guidance. It has done a really good job—that is what it does—but the Government do not need it. It is just another red herring—a delay tactic.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cost of living has only exacerbated a problem that we knew existed, so it is right for this House to think very deeply about the question.

On a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned, it is worth noting that gaps are being recognised by more and more organisations. Last November, following a UK-wide survey of medical students, the British Medical Association issued a press release calling for stronger protections against neglect and specifically referring to sexism and sexual violence towards medical students. It urged the Government

“to bring forward legislation that introduces a statutory duty of care on higher education institutions for their students.”

We should be clear that a statutory duty of care would not require universities to act in loco parentis, nor would it require them to provide unlimited services or assume clinical responsibilities. Rather, it would establish a clear baseline that universities must act reasonably, with appropriate care and skill, when harm is foreseeable and vulnerability is evident, much as already happens in other regulated settings.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I have come to this place from the university sector, so I understand the points that my hon. Friend is making. I pay tribute to staff across the sector who are supporting students right now. My hon. Friend will know that the sector is under huge financial pressure, so does he agree that a statutory duty should come with statutory funding?

[James Naish]

Yes. Undoubtedly one of the universities’ biggest concerns is about how the duty would be implemented and what the implications would be. I am not shying away from the reality that there would be costs for universities, but the question is whether we should put the duty in place. My hon. Friend’s point is about how any such legislation should be implemented, as opposed to whether it is needed in the first place.

It is important to be clear that a statutory duty of care is not about exposing institutions to unreasonable liability. In fact, clearer statutory duties may benefit universities by reducing uncertainty, helping to focus limited resources on the services and support that will make the biggest and most important legal difference, and by providing a shared sector-wide benchmark against which wellbeing and safety interventions can be properly assessed and, when necessary, judged in a court of law.

Length of the School Week

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 727514 relating to the length of the school week.

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate in which you are presiding, Mrs Hobhouse, and to move this motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, especially because I was a secondary school teacher for almost a decade before I came to this place. The petition calls on the Government to reduce the school week from five days to four, while making each of the remaining school days one hour longer.

Ahead of these debates, I always try to speak with the petition’s creator to get a sense of why they started it, and I spoke with the creator of this petition before the Christmas break. He joins us in the Gallery with his mother, who is a teacher herself, and that is a central part of the reason why he began the petition. He had learned in school that almost a third of teachers leave the profession within five years. He hoped that a four-day school week would give teachers more time to spend with their families and encourage them to stay in the classroom—where we all want our best teachers to be—and he thinks that pupils could use their day out of school to do volunteering or other positive things in their local community

The proposal attracted significant interest; the petition has been signed by more than 126,000 people. Unfortunately, I do not have a breakdown of the ages of those signatories—[Laughter.] However, I suspect—and the laughter tells me that colleagues do too—that, given that this issue affects so many young people, many of the people who signed the petition may well be of school age. I think it is important that we bring their views into this debate.

Last month, I had the privilege of meeting secondary school pupils visiting Parliament, who were constituents of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and hearing their thoughts about this idea. I spoke to some Back Benchers before going, and they said, “Well, of course they’re going to support it; it’s another day off school,” but yet again, adults overlooked how seriously young people would take it. Before we dismiss their enthusiasm out of hand, there are some really important things to consider that underpinned their interest. Yes, they liked the idea, but more than 15% said that they thought it would reduce school absences, and more than a quarter thought that it would improve their mental health.

That is a really serious point. The most recent NHS children and young people’s mental health survey found that one in five children aged eight to 16 had a probable mental health condition. We know that mental health concerns among young people have risen since the covid-19 pandemic, when many were so isolated. Factors such as climate change, extremism in politics and the cost of housing leave many young people feeling pessimistic about the future.

The pupils I spoke to also had some serious questions about the proposal, and went straight for the logistics of how it would work. Three big worries came through. The main argument against the idea, particularly among the pupils we polled, was that a longer day would be too tiring and that, by the time people got to what I referred to as period 6 when I was in school and when I was teaching—the sixth hour of the day—brains would be overused and they would not be quite as productive. Some thought that they would get more homework, that it would be harder to do it on top of longer school days, and that that would mean a reduction in the face-to-face time they got with their teachers.

Other pupils had questions about where the new periods would be added. Would they get extra breaks? Would the period go at the start or the end of the day? Older pupils, in particular, were concerned about the impact on their exams. Their school had six 50-minute lessons a day, and they were worried about where the lost hours would come from if they got 200 minutes back in four additional 50-minute lessons.

The final concern that came through strongly, which is easy to overlook but is vital when we consider this issue, was safety. Many pupils pointed out that, despite attending a school on the edge of a major city and having much better access to street lighting than some in rural areas such as the one I represent, a longer school day would mean that they would go home or to school in the dark, especially in the winter. It would be even worse if they wanted to do an extracurricular activity for an hour after school, in which case it could well be 5.30 pm or close to 6 pm by the time they went home. As we see outside today, it can be very dark at 6.05 pm. A number of pupils expressed real concern about whether they would be safe walking home in the dark if the proposed change were made.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

This is a devolved issue, but I did post about it on my Facebook page, because it is an interesting question—I think the post had about 100,000 views and just under 400 comments. One of the challenges that people brought up, which I think my hon. Friend missed from his list, was the impact of longer days on kids with additional support needs, and how their learning might be supported in the classroom as well as on the day off. We have to acknowledge the impact on students and their learning, but does he agree that we also have to think about the impact on children with additional support needs and their families?

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. So often the system has been designed in one way and within it there is huge complexity, particularly when it comes to pupils with additional needs or special educational needs and disabilities. Redesigning the entire school week would obviously mean redesigning many of the other support factors that go around it. That point could easily be missed if we looked at this issue without the required detail. My hon. Friend’s level of social media engagement shames me; I shall have a drink with him later to ask how he is getting on with it.

In addition to meeting pupils from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North, I spoke to the National Association of Head Teachers. It shared some of their concerns, especially around mental health, but ultimately did not think that this proposal was the answer. In the NAHT’s view, the best way to ease the strain on pupils would be to reduce course content and the number of exams at the end of courses.

The NAHT had a number of other issues with the proposal. One was the impact it would have on extracurricular activities, which I have already mentioned. That is especially important, because pupils cited that as one of the main reasons for supporting the proposal: they wanted more time away from school to do volunteering or non-curricular stuff from which they get some value. The NAHT worried that the school day running later could mean fewer clubs for sports, music and similar things at the end of the day, and ultimately a less rich offer for pupils. A wealth of educational evidence shows that access to extracurricular activities is one of the things that helps to close attainment gaps right across the country.

The NAHT also worried that an earlier start to the school day would have a bad impact on secondary pupils. Studies show that teenagers’ sleep patterns mean they are best prepared to learn when they have slightly later starts, not earlier ones. Overall, like the pupils who opposed the petition, the NAHT was concerned that a longer school day would be too tiring, especially for primary school pupils, who need breaks and shorter spells of concentration to learn at their best.

Importantly, the NAHT recognised the impact on parents. For someone who works five days a week, suddenly needing to provide childcare on one of those days would be a huge challenge. I am a former teacher, and one of the things that always used to wind me up about debates like this was hearing people say, “But what about childcare?” I used to lose my mind, because teachers do so much more than childcare. However, it is a fact that if the kids are in school, their childcare is taken care of, and that taking kids out of school for one day a week would leave a huge void to be filled. Access to childcare is one of the major issues that affects young families, and this proposal would exacerbate that rather than solve it.

However, the NAHT did agree with the petitioners, as I do, that there is a significant problem with teacher retention. Britain has the youngest teaching workforce in the OECD. Not only are teachers leaving the profession, but many are unwilling to take on leadership roles, because the work is just so heavy, especially in primary schools. The NAHT favours a four-day teaching week—five days of classes, but a day a week for teachers to focus on lesson prep and administration, which we used to call PPA back in my day—and making the job more sustainable.

Before I conclude, I want to say something from my personal experience as a classroom teacher for almost a decade. I had the great privilege of working at the largest school in the country. We had a 15-form entry, so we had 15 classes in each year group; we had 2,500 kids on site every day and more than 300 staff. I was the school’s principal union rep during my time there. In 2015, we trialled something very similar to this proposal as a way of trying to push attainment up, to make sure that every kid who could just get over that grade got over that grade. We cancelled all staff meetings, we cancelled all staff time with other staff, and we did everything for contact. We put on a period 6—an additional hour at the end of every day. All of my members said, “You know what? If this is for the good of the kids and the school, let’s try it. Let’s give it a go and see what happens.”

We all went for it, and it was such hard work to put on valuable sessions for that sixth hour of the day. When we came to do an analysis in the September, we could not find that it had made any difference, positive or negative. What we found from doing it—having to move all this stuff around and the additional workload that came with it—was that the reason why the school day is six hours long, and has been six hours long for so long, is that that is what brains are designed to learn in. Adding that sixth hour had almost no impact—certainly no measurable impact—on pupil outcomes, and we had a big enough sample size to give at least some credence to the conclusion.

It is clear from the Government’s written response to the petition that they do not support the proposal, and there are clear reasons for that, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on some of the themes that underpin the petition, because it is also clear that there were reasons for starting it that relate to children’s mental health, opportunities for hobbies and volunteering, and retention of experienced teachers in order to give our children the best start possible.

Support for Dyslexic Pupils

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

What a privilege it is to serve under you today, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for introducing this debate, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell).

As others have noted, dyslexia affects around 10% of the UK population, with 4% experiencing severe dyslexia. Up to 80% of children with the condition leave school without a diagnosis or the support they need to reach their full potential. When I was at school, dyslexia was understood even less than it is now. I was one of those kids who took a long time to progress through English. Some people might not be surprised to hear that it took me three attempts to pass my O-grade English, which was Scotland’s equivalent of O-level English. It was not until I became a university lecturer and encountered kids with a proper diagnosis that I started to understand the condition and how it affected me. I developed coping strategies that enabled me to try to sit my higher English at evening college. I did succeed, but it was not a journey I entirely enjoyed.

As a university lecturer, I met students who had been really well supported at school, and that had helped them to reach their full potential. I taught civil engineering, a subject that often attracted students with good mathematical skills but perhaps not the best English skills. I also encountered students who had not been diagnosed at school, and it was not until their first set of exams that they started to be flagged as needing extra support.

[Adam Dance]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if someone with dyslexia has not been identified and fails English at GCSE level, and then has to go to college and retake it, that puts them off going to university? It certainly put me off.

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. Particularly if the condition is not understood, they just assume—let us face it—that they are not the smartest kid in the class, whereas often the opposite is true. Through working with dyslexic students in my job as a lecturer, I know they are often real problem solvers, as we have heard, and systems thinkers able to see the bigger picture. Once they had a diagnosis, we were able to support them in their studies.

I worked in the sector for a long time. I started lecturing in the late ’90s, and when staff back then discussed dyslexia we had spectacularly uninformed debates about the condition. I remember one well-intentioned colleague talking about his hope that a student could shake off dyslexia by the time they left university. If only that had been possible, that lecturer would be world renowned by now. He is still a great person, though.

In Edinburgh we are lucky to have organisations such as HealthCare in Mind stepping in to help parents in Edinburgh South West to secure a recognised diagnosis, so that their children can finally access the support they deserve. But receiving a diagnosis and the associated help should not be down to a postcode lottery. It should come early enough in a child’s life to allow them to adapt their style of learning and make the most of their school experience.

A recent survey by Dyslexia Scotland showed that dyslexia is still widely misunderstood. Many parents, and I dare say some teachers, still think it is something that children can grow out of, that it affects only boys, that it is about eyesight, or that children can overcome it if they just try harder.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not the case that people just become better at bluffing and finding coping strategies? But that does not really deal with the dyslexia.

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. I became very good at avoiding being given the pen to write on the whiteboard at school, and that was a coping strategy.

As we have heard, at the heart of the differences in diagnosis is a real inequality. We are all here, from all parties, to reduce inequality, and it makes absolute sense to focus that lens on dyslexia. We have a duty to try to bring justice for everyone affected by dyslexia.

I am proud that researchers from the University of Edinburgh are leading groundbreaking work to help to us better understand and identify dyslexia at an early stage. The university’s recent study involved over 1.2 million people—probably people from the constituencies of everyone here today—and identified 36 new gene regions linked to dyslexia, confirming it as a neurodevelopmental brain difference.

I hope that the confirmation of dyslexia’s biological basis can help to reduce the stigma, alongside fantastic campaigns like Dyslexia Scotland’s “Busting myths” initiative. By challenging the stigma, equipping educators and supporting young people early, we can ensure that children with dyslexia are not left behind. By understanding early intervention and proper support, we can transform thousands of young lives throughout the UK and help them to reach their full potential.

I want to end by talking about strategies. The idea of agreeing today to take forward a strategy is fantastic, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for proposing it. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), we have a strategy in Scotland, but when we compare what is happening in Scotland, where we have is a strategy, with what is happening in England, where we do not, there is not a substantial difference. If we are going to agree a strategy, we have to ensure that it is properly funded and that there is real accountability for ourselves, for parents and, most particularly, for young people, to make sure they get the maximum benefit from it.

Social Mobility: Careers Education

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing this important debate, and I welcome the thoughtful contributions that we are about to hear from across the Chamber. I make my speech within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This discussion about careers education could not be more timely, with almost 1 million young people in the UK currently not in education, employment or training, and our universities facing unprecedented challenges. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is deeply concerning, as we have heard already, that children eligible for free school meals are 20% less likely to progress into higher education. Shockingly, in Scotland, a total of 1,351 pupils—enough to fill an entire school—left school last year without a single qualification. Even for those who reach university, funding has been reduced since 2013. University student funding in Scotland has seen a real terms cut of 22%, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham rightly highlighted in opening the debate, many of our young people are also being let down within that context.

We all recognise the transformative power of education in creating equality of opportunity, yet in recent years it feels like that has faltered. Too many young people are not receiving the skills training and support that they need to navigate a rapidly evolving job market. Addressing that requires targeted investment in left-behind communities, focusing support—as we have heard—on lower-income families and reforms to ensure that our service delivery achieves the best possible outcomes for children of all backgrounds. One key avenue for achieving that is through careers education. It plays a vital role in improving social mobility by equipping young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the knowledge, skills and social capital needed to better access opportunities.

Having spent 24 years as a professor at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, I have seen at first hand the life-changing impact of education—I have also seen students arrive at university who were born after I started working there, but that is a secondary issue. I have also witnessed growing barriers to social mobility and shrinking opportunities for young people in Scotland. Too often, the most disadvantaged bear the brunt of underfunding in the sector. That makes high-quality careers education all the more essential, so that every young person can make the most of the opportunities available for them. It is so much harder for disadvantaged kids to repeat a year or start again, so it is important that we get it right for them first time.

I worry, however, that the budgets for those services will be squeezed in the funding crisis that universities face across the UK, but particularly in Scotland. If we are serious about economic growth, we cannot let that happen. I have seen careers advisers doing exceptional work in that space. They recognise that, while every student has potential, not all have access to the networks and opportunities needed to realise it. A report from the Behavioural Insights Team in 2021 noted that many ambitious pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are held back by “career confusion”, whereby the students do not undertake the qualifications required for their chosen career path. It is clear that those students do not lack aspiration or even aptitude, but they have been let down by a lack of support.

Not only does that hold back pupils and their aspirations; it further exacerbates the social inequalities that we see right across the UK, as young people from more advantaged backgrounds often have better access to informal networks of career advice, which their less advantaged peers do not. Career advisers, and all of us, have a duty to ensure that every young person, regardless of their background, can progress to a positive destination and thrive in work and life. In partnership with employers, they deliver structured and impactful support. It is not just about writing a CV or finding a job; it is also about building confidence, enhancing social capital, and defining and enhancing essential workplace skills, and good careers advisers understand the difference between finding a job and starting a career.

Careers advice needs to inform educational choices, not just respond to them. We often speak in this House about the need to strengthen higher education and expand pathways for young people, including apprenticeships and vocational training, which we heard about in today’s statement. However, we speak far less about the support our young people need to make informed career choices in the first place. As the Government have rightly stated, breaking down barriers to opportunity is not a challenge for tomorrow; it is a priority for today. I therefore welcome the £3 billion investment in skills and training, but we have to make sure that our young people can take advantage of that through good careers advice.

It is particularly important that we are talking about this issue today, as the UK is facing a skills shortage that it is estimated will cost the country £120 billion by 2030. At the same time, ONS data shows that 872,000 young people are out of work, education and training. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for bringing this important debate to the House. His work highlights the urgent need to invest in proper training, education and support for young people. For their sake and for the future of our economy, I hope the Government continue to act on the issues raised.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

We will now have a formal three-minute time limit.

Gender Self-identification

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

In 2016, the Scottish Government announced their intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland and to introduce self-ID. Years followed, and Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in 2022. Since then, according to statistics that started to be published in 2023, waiting times for gender identity clinic appointments have been increasing. In June that year, 5,273 people were waiting for an appointment, with 45 people waiting longer than five years. At 31 March 2024, that had increased to 5,640, with 184 people waiting longer than five years. Transgender identity-aggravated crime charges have also doubled, from approximately 40 in 2016-17 to more than 80 in most years since 2021, which is unacceptable and must be acted on and improved. The Bill is not improving the lives of transgender people.

Many people have faced abuse, intimidation and threats for expressing any concerns about or opposition to self-identification. I know people whose careers have suffered, or who have been cancelled or dismissed, and respected academics who have been targeted. I have witnessed placards inciting violence, and sexually aggressive language towards women. We currently have the terrible situation of nurses being taken to employment tribunals for standing up for their rights, which are provided for in the Equality Act 2010. Those threats and that intimidation are almost always targeted at women.

During the passage of the Bill, Scottish Ministers repeatedly said it was the most consulted-on Bill in the history of devolution. However, consultation is only meaningful if the feedback is listened to. One of the areas ignored by Scottish Ministers was prison placements. Self-ID was already being implemented in the prison estate across the UK. The issue was raised in the House in February 2019 after a woman was sexually assaulted in HMP New Hall. The then UK Government ordered a policy review; the Scottish Government did nothing. That is just one example where the Scottish Government ignored warnings, leaving them to defend the indefensible.

In the Supreme Court case brought by For Women Scotland, Scottish Ministers argued that, for the purpose of sex under the Equality Act, a woman would be a biological woman, a person who had a gender recognition certificate identifying as a woman, or a person who self-identified as a woman. Had the Scottish Ministers won, it would have meant that the rights of one protected characteristic would prevail over the rights of another—again, a concern raised during the consultation that was not listened to and that has been borne out in practice.

In one example from March this year, councillors who strongly support self-ID attempted to defund Edinburgh Women’s Aid. Their reason for doing so was that it provided some services that did not include trans people. That women’s project provides single-sex services, refuge and support for women, and a lawful exemption is provided for in the Equality Act.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that threat to the funding for Edinburgh Women’s Aid was an absolute disgrace, and that we should be ashamed that it was even discussed in Edinburgh?

[Tracy Gilbert]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Were those councillors really saying that trans people wanted to see vital support for women fleeing violence and abuse withdrawn? Those politicians do not represent the views of any trans person I have met.

Self-identification has an impact on a number of protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. Of course we must do more to help and support trans people to live healthy, happy and fulfilling lives, and we must bring respect and dignity to all. Trans men and women remain protected by the Equality Act 2010, proudly introduced by the last Labour Government, and they must have appropriate services and protections from discrimination in the workplace—but those should never come at the expense of other protected groups.

We all know from the Sullivan review that data has not been collected accurately and that institutions continue to blur the lines between sex and gender, which is leading to gaps in provision for all people across communities. Replacing sex with gender identity erases biological difference, which is critically important for medical and health issues, criminal justice, education, sport and the rights of lesbians and gay men, to name but a few areas.

In conclusion, it is vital that we have open communication with trans people to move this conversation forward. We all have a responsibility to remove the toxicity from this debate. This is not about winning or losing; it is about how we provide trans people with services and help them to live dignified lives, but with the understanding that sex is not an identity, and gender and sex are not the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Furniss. Is it not fitting that we have had a change of gender in the Chair during this debate? It is quite incredible.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who is not in his place just now, summed up so much when he said that being trans is not a choice. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds made an incredibly important point that applies to everyone when she said that everybody has a right to be themselves. In my maiden speech, I made the point that I would be there for everyone in my constituency. In the last Parliament, many people across the UK did not feel that they could approach their MP to discuss this issue. That is something that should shame us all.

I consider myself an ally of the LGBT community, not least because I am the proud father of a gay woman. I hope that we will hear today from the Minister about the implementation of our manifesto in this area. This time last year, on so many doorsteps in Edinburgh South West, I was pointing to that section of the manifesto and saying, “This is our commitment,” so hopefully we will see it sooner rather than later.

I want to talk about two people I spoke to on the doorstep last year. Without doubt, the person I spoke to longest was the mother of a trans woman. It was incredibly moving. She talked about how, as her daughter moved through puberty, she struggled to come to terms with herself, and about the problem that that caused her. Her daughter believed that if she did not eat, it would delay the onset of puberty. It led to her almost dying. That told me that perhaps there is a case for puberty blockers; in an absolute minority of cases, where they could save a life, they are really important. That girl is now a woman. The last I heard, she was leading a full life, thanks to her quite incredible mother.

A few weeks after that, I spoke to the mother and father of two teenage girls. They were concerned about this debate, because they were worried that their daughters would go into a toilet and be confronted by a trans woman or—worse still, as they saw it—by someone masquerading as a trans woman. It is tempting to view those two sets of parents as opposed to each other, but in fact they had so much in common: they both loved their children and just wanted the best for them.

Quite naively, I dreamed that the solution was perhaps to get the parents together so that they could see the issue from different perspectives and find common ground. Scottish MPs will know that that was incredibly difficult in Scotland, because the debate in Scotland became incredibly toxic. I do not know how bad it was in England, but it could not have been worse than it was in Scotland. The thing we should be ashamed of is that it became difficult to talk about the issue in social circles, because nobody knew what perspectives people had or how strong their feelings were. It does not support the rights of a minority group when we cannot even talk about their rights in those settings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) said that we need a respectful debate. That is right. It is good that the EHRC’s consultation around the Supreme Court’s ruling has been extended to six weeks, and I hope that it is open and inclusive. I also hope that, as well as people suggesting to the EHRC how they think the world should be, we find space to listen to one another, because that is what has been missing from this debate for the past five years or so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Can the Minister explain the timeline in a bit more detail? When can we expect this to come to Parliament? When will the formal guidance be agreed and issued?

[Seema Malhotra]

Some of this depends on the EHRC’s work and the time it takes to respond to the consultation; I know that we all want it to do so effectively. It is a matter on which I am sure the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, who is unable to be here today, will update the House in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West will understand that on one hand, we are saying it needs to be longer, and on the other hand we want clarity. What is important is that it is a consultation in which all voices can be heard. I think he will appreciate the assurance that the updated code will be laid in Parliament and will be there for scrutiny and consideration by both Houses. That will be an important part of the process.

Universities: Funding and Employment

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

In following the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary university group and I am proud of my relationship with the University of St Andrews. The hon. Member talked about her experience; I was previously assistant vice-principal at St Andrews, with oversight of recruitment and internationalisation—areas that are crucial to the health of the university sector.

Today, I will remain closer to home and talk a little bit about the University of Dundee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) has already referred to this issue. I should also register my interest as a graduate of the university. Like most people locally, the university is very much part of my family, with my father also being a graduate of it and my grandmother having worked there as a cleaner.

Before I move on, I want to make clear something that we do not hear enough in this place. Our higher education sector thrives and is world leading in teaching and in research because it is international, and because it is competitive and brings in the best researchers and students from all over the world. It will remain competitive only if it remains international. Today, the University of Dundee and the city face 700 job cuts. That would be devastating for families, for the city and for Scotland and the wider UK. We all benefit from the research and the teaching there.

The main issue that has been highlighted—it dwarfs all the others—is the huge drop in international income. The acting principal, Professor O’Neill, told the Scottish Parliament recently that

“changes in immigration policy and related factors…have had a negative impact on our international student recruitment.”

He also pointed to a two-thirds drop in taught postgraduate student numbers in the last two years.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the impact of immigration policy—the sector needs a policy that helps it to attract the best staff and the best students—but he will know that the challenge facing the sector in Scotland is long-lasting and is due to underfunding. Student fees have dropped substantially below the level in England and there has been a cap on places. That is why universities in Scotland have had to look overseas so much. Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that this year Scottish universities faced a real-terms cut from the Scottish Government?

[Stephen Gethins]

I wanted to give the Member the opportunity to intervene because I am going to criticise Scottish Labour and talk about some of its priorities. The difference between English fees and Scottish fees would not even cover the national insurance increase that has been imposed by his Government.

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I think the hon. Member has said enough. His Government have damaged the sector enough, never mind the £12 million, which is structural, that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee Central highlighted. The sector has been battered by Brexit and by a Tory hostile environment that the Labour Government have embraced. We want to see something international.

Scottish Labour previously proposed that we should devolve greater migration policy. The First Minister has talked about a tailored visa route for Scotland, which Scottish Labour proposed previously. I would love to find out whether Scottish Labour still propose that, because that could make a real difference to our sector. The Labour party previously campaigned on that.

We have seen the biggest drop in dependant visas, whereas we know that the markets bring in dependants from all over the world. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) identified that as an issue, as have others. Will the Government rethink wiping out dependant visas? It is entirely understandable that people bring their kids with them when they come to study. I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) cannot answer that, but I know that the Minister will. I hope the hon. Member will agree with me that the dependant visa needs to be looked at, because the health of the sector depends on it.

The UK is hobbling universities’ international competitiveness. I am pleased that the Scottish Government stepped up for the University of Dundee and made a contribution. Labour and SNP Members called on them to do so, and I was glad we all had that common approach. Given the damage that is being done at a UK level, as we sit in the UK Parliament, it would be nice to hear Scottish Labour stand up for the sector and address the damage that their own Government are doing. Will the Minister look at the hostile environment when they look at this issue? That is key to the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for introducing the debate so well. I should start by referring Members to the register of interests and saying I am a member of the University and College Union. I am also proud to say that I employ two university students in my office on a part-time basis.

“Our education system in Scotland is crumbling, and it’s being allowed to happen. It’s becoming all too common to hear from university or college management that course closures are necessary and staff redundancy schemes unavoidable.”

These are not my words, but those of Sai Shraddha Suresh Viswanathan, the current president of NUS Scotland. Scotland is unique in so many ways, but one of those ways is that it stands alone in the world with a Government who think they can grow the economy by cutting university funding and capping the number of places available to Scottish students. Our universities are at breaking point in Scotland. Funding per undergraduate student in Scotland is more than £2,000 less per student compared with England. Think about what that would mean for universities in England. Undergraduate education in Scotland—universities—cannot run at a profit; they cannot break even. They have to do other things.

The cap on places is brutal. Since 2006, there has been a 56% increase in the number of applicants to universities, which is fantastic, but the number of refused entries has increased by 84%. When clearing comes in the summertime and options are posted for Scotland’s universities, they are available only for students from outside Scotland. Even when Scottish students have better qualifications, they cannot get access to those places because the cap has been used up.

The financial crisis is resulting in job losses right across Scotland. We heard about Dundee; the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) is not in his place just now, but he outlined that 700 jobs are at risk there due to a £35 million deficit. The Scottish Government described the bleak outlook in Dundee as “troubling”—I think the staff there probably view it quite differently. The University of Edinburgh is looking at £140 million-worth of cuts over the next 18 months. That is 10% of its annual budget. The principal there has refused to rule out compulsory redundancies, saying,

“nothing is off the table”.

In Aberdeen, voluntary redundancy schemes are open. Robert Gordon University is talking about losing 100 staff. It is expected that the Scottish Funding Council will say, that, as we heard earlier, over half the institutions in Scotland are running at a deficit. This is a crisis that demands urgent action.

It is not just universities that are being short-changed; poor students are when it comes to loans for living costs. The living wage went up yesterday, which is good, but a single parent on the national minimum wage in Scotland working 37 hours per week will be earning £3,000 over the threshold for their child having full support at university, meaning that that single parent is expected to give the child £1,500 to attend university. That is utterly shameful.

I am a huge supporter of Scottish universities, and I love meeting staff and students in this place to hear about all they do. I have to acknowledge that often the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is also there, supporting the sector in Scotland. Universities are at the heart of Scotland’s economy, and have been for centuries, but they need to be cherished, and that is not happening right now. We need a Scottish Government who take the sector seriously.