Home-to-School Transport

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered home-to-school transport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I am grateful for having secured this important debate. At its core, home-to-school transport is a simple promise: where a child cannot reasonably walk to school, transport will not be a barrier to their education. However, that promise is under serious strain.

Across the country, and acutely in North Yorkshire, families are finding that promise being broken by policy changes that are short-sighted, poorly designed and, in many cases, deeply unfair. The national picture is stark; the Public Accounts Committee published its report on home-to-school transport in March, and its conclusions make for uncomfortable reading.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and I was the spokesperson for that report when it went to the media. The report dealt specifically with the education of those with special educational needs and disabilities, and it became very clear that there is a complete drop-off at age 16, meaning that many young adults aged 16 to 19 cannot get to school. The other point I would like to make is that, in rural constituencies like my own, the local special school is not a mile down the road, so it can mean a two-hour round journey.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her diligent work as a member of the PAC, and for making that point about SEND, which I will come on to during my speech.

Local authorities in England spent £2.6 billion on home-to-school transport in 2024-25, which was a real-terms increase of 70% since 2015-16. SEND transport alone more than doubled in cost over that same period, and it now accounts for £2 billion of that total. These are enormous sums, but remarkably, the PAC found that the Department for Education does not know whether this spending is achieving value for money. It does not have the data needed to oversee the system effectively, and it cannot adequately measure the relationship between transport and school attendance.

The consequences of that failure are visible in other figures: some 1 million young people in the UK are not in education, employment or training, and one in five children of compulsory school age misses at least a day of school per fortnight, which rises to one in three at sixth-form age. The Department’s own assessment looks only at transport disruptions on the day they occur, not the wider issue of whether the system is keeping children in school. This is a serious blind spot, and one that the Government need to address.

This is not just a North Yorkshire problem; the County Councils Network has warned that three quarters of councils are expected to tighten mainstream transport eligibility in the coming years. What is happening in my constituency today, and across North Yorkshire, is a preview of what families across rural England will face if this direction of travel is not reversed. Nowhere is the picture more stark than in some of the stories that my constituents have told me, which is why I secured this debate today.

At the heart of the problem is a growing disconnect between two systems that are supposed to work together but increasingly do not. We have a school admissions system built around catchment areas and feeder school relationships, and a home-to-school transport framework that has been interpreted ever more narrowly as being for the “nearest school only”.

For many years, county councils bridged that gap pragmatically by offering transport to the nearest or catchment school. That reflects the realities of rural England, where many children live well beyond walking distance, where public transport is sparse or often non-existent, and where the geography means that the nearest school on the map is often not the most practical school to reach—sometimes there is a dale in the way, sometimes a river crossing, and sometimes a simple county boundary that bears no relation to how communities actually function.

As budgets tighten and authorities retreat towards the statutory minimum provision, councils are removing catchment transport and reverting to nearest school only. In rural areas like North Yorkshire, the consequences are severe and they are being felt right now. Within days of being elected, the issue of home-to-school transport was landing in my email inbox, and it has not stopped since. North Yorkshire council changed its transport policy to base eligibility on nearest school only, rather than the nearest or catchment school. The council says this is to address rising costs, which are now expected to exceed £52 million—one of the three largest areas of the council’s expenditure—with unsubstantiated claims of savings of up to £3 million over the next seven years.

I understand budgetary pressures, and I understand that local authorities are being squeezed from every direction, but understanding a pressure does not simply mean accepting the response to it uncritically, when the policy is clearly not working. The system that North Yorkshire council uses to calculate the nearest school is not publicly available, so families receive decisions with no ability to interrogate the methodology behind them. That opacity alone is a problem, but when we look at what the methodology is actually producing, it becomes something worse than opaque; it becomes absurd.

The council measures distance using the shortest available walked route to school, which sounds reasonable until we look at what counts as a “walked route”. That includes riverside paths, farm tracks, roads with no pavements or street lights, cliffside grass tracks and hiking paths over the dales. Campaigners have discovered that the council’s mapping tool has even been thought to include a private farm track and a ford crossing of a river as an available walking route to school. In reality, the ford is passable only by tractor and the track is on private land. One family appealed successfully against the use of the route, but it remains on the council’s mapping system, ready to be used again.

The School Transport Action Group has documented routes that children have been expected to follow, including climbing over metal barriers on the A64 and using paths that cross an active military firing range. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view of whether any of those constitute a “nearest available walked route”, in North Yorkshire council’s words. STAG, which was formed to fight the changes, has done determined and important work in documenting the human and financial cost of the policy. I pay particular tribute to Jo Foster, whose campaigning on the issue has been tireless and has helped bring the national attention that it warrants. STAG puts the situation plainly:

“North Yorkshire Council has lost the plot on home to school transport”,

and I am inclined to agree. More than 1,000 families have been affected, with more than 200 appeals and 20 ombudsman cases in the past year alone. A senior councillor who voted for this very policy has publicly admitted that it contains errors, and some families have been left as losers. This is not a rounding error; it is a clear policy failure.

STAG has completed a survey of families going through the process right now, the class of 2026. The group has 60 responses so far, and the findings are telling: nearly 59% applied to a school because it was their catchment school, more than a third already had siblings there, and 84% live in towns and villages that have a school bus going to their chosen catchment school, yet 73% will not be eligible for free transport. Nearly two thirds of those families have no back-up plan at all.

Some have told STAG what their options look like in practice. One parent said:

“My back-up plan is to leave my job so I can drive my child to school.”

Another said:

“We would have to consider driving, but we both travel with work and it wouldn’t allow us to do our current jobs.”

A single parent wrote:

“I would not be able to work. I am a single parent household.”

One parent captured the particular absurdity of sibling cases:

“I shall have to take extra overtime at work in order to pay for my second child to sit on a bus that my eldest child is already on.”

Those families who plan to buy a paid-for bus pass face a further cruelty. Those passes will not be confirmed until August. They will be subject to availability and can be withdrawn with one week’s notice. The council has made it clear that its intention is to phase out catchment routes entirely, as soon as possible. Families are therefore being asked to plan their working lives around a service that may not exist by the time that their child starts secondary school.

Those are not edge cases; they are predictable, documented consequences of a policy that has stripped the transport system away from the admissions system it is supposed to support. The costs have not disappeared; they have simply been transferred from the council to the rural families who can least afford them. Council officers have described the changes as ensuring “fairness and consistency”, but I will put some individual stories on the record and let Members judge that for themselves.

Leanne lives in a village outside Harrogate. Her daughter has been waiting three and a half years for a diagnosis, but is on the SEN register and has a PDA—pathological demand avoidance—profile with emotional-based school avoidance. There is no public bus through her village and no safe walking route. Leanne’s other child has Down’s syndrome and an education, health and care plan, and cannot travel to school safely alone. Both children need to be at school at the same time; Leanne and her husband both work full time. Under the new policy, they have been denied free transport to the nearest suitable school and are now paying £94 a month for a bus permit. She told me:

“The system is broken and does not take into account personal circumstances or rural villages’ needs.”

I agree with her entirely.

David lives in Upper Wharfedale. Every morning he drives in convoy with his neighbours, following the school bus past his house, because his neighbours qualified under the old policy, but he did not. For him, the bus goes to the nearest primary school, the only school that anyone in the local area has attended for 60 years, along the only safe route available. North Yorkshire council, however, is now saying that his children’s nearest school is Hawes, in Wensleydale. To get there, they would have to cross Fleet Moss, one of the highest and most remote routes in the country, which is treacherous in winter and frequently impassable. David and his family moved to the dales five years ago to run a farm diversification scheme, but they would never have come had this policy been in place then. He has told me that it will be

“the death of these communities, and that’s not hyperbole.”

I believe him.

Sophie, a friend I went to high school and college with, lives in one of the villages straddling multiple local authority boundaries, with a Doncaster postcode, North Yorkshire council oversight, an East Yorkshire postal address and a West Yorkshire phone number. Her children’s primary school cohort has been scattered across four secondary schools, in different local authorities and in four different directions. She made the point with her characteristic directness: it cannot possibly be more cost-effective to fund transport to four separate schools in four different directions than it would be to fund one bus to one school. The policy is not just unfair to families, but undermining the purpose that it is meant to be achieving.

There is also a wider consequence that is often not discussed. One in four small primary schools in North Yorkshire stands to lose pupils because of this policy. Small secondary schools in Settle, Whitby and Boroughbridge face an existential threat. When we hollow out the transport routes that sustain these schools, we do not just inconvenience rural families, but undermine the schools themselves and the rural communities they serve.

I also want to raise the issue facing SEND families specifically, and the additional injustice of a cliff edge at 16. I want to tell this Chamber about Noah, whose mother Catherine has shared his story with me. Noah deferred starting primary school by a year because he was unable to walk. After winning an appeal to attend St John’s, North Yorkshire council offset that deferred year and placed him in year 8. The consequence— I want colleagues to sit with this for a moment—is that Noah will now receive one fewer year of education than his peers, and four years of free transport rather than five because his transport entitlement ends at 16. He has already had more taken from him than other children, through no fault of his own, and the system’s response is to take even more.

Noah cannot walk independently and requires one-to-one support. His taxi to school has become the highlight of his day because it is the one moment where he does not feel dependent on his mum—when he can feel something like freedom. His family have one income, claim universal credit and have little to no savings; they cannot find the money needed to pay the monthly costs for school transport. When Noah turns 18, the assumption is that his mum will simply be able to drive him because she has a Motability vehicle, which will strip away his independence that took so long to build. This is not a bureaucratic edge case; the system does this to families like Noah’s without apology.

That is not an isolated experience. The Public Accounts Committee found that 40% of families with young people with SEND said that they needed to give up work because of transport provision ending when their child turned 16. Colleges report students failing to start courses because transport had not been agreed. I believe that there was an issue across the border in Leeds, where the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has already found the council at fault for its approach to post-16 SEND transport, identifying both individual injustice and systemic failure. However, families continue to report inconsistent decisions, inadequate assessments and personal travel allowances that do not cover the actual costs.

The charity Contact put it clear in evidence to PAC: the policy is simply not working post 16. The change in entitlement can feel like a cliff edge. For families who have spent years building routines and supporting a young person with complex needs, that cliff edge can be devastating for the young person and for every member of their family around them. We cannot have a system that claims to support inclusion and participation while simultaneously pulling the transport that makes participation possible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wanted to come along and support the hon. Gentleman in bringing this debate forward. He is a very assiduous MP in this House, whether it be on the Back Benches in the Chamber or leading debates in Westminster Hall, and I want to congratulate him on that. I also add my support to what he is hoping to achieve because, although this is not a responsibility for the Minister—this issue is devolved in Northern Ireland—we have similar problems when it comes to SEND issues, disabled children and road safety. In his quest to have a better system, I wish him well. I hope that, back home in Northern Ireland where it is devolved—the Minister here has no responsibility for it—we will see changes as well.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. As ever, he puts his point eloquently and passionately. I agree that, no matter where a SEND child is living in this United Kingdom, they deserve a lot better than they are getting at the moment.

I want to press the Minister on a number of specific points. The single most impactful achievable change that this Government could make is also the simplest. The statutory guidance on home-to-school transport should be updated so that the minimum provision becomes the nearest or catchment school, rather than solely the nearest suitable school. That one change would restore the alignment between admissions and transport that rural families depend on. It would give councils a clear framework and remove the incentive to reinterpret eligibility ever more narrowly. It would protect the community-school relationships that anchor rural life, and it would not even require primary legislation. I urge the Minister to give that serious consideration.

Secondly, I urge the Minister to impress on her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government the need to reinstate the rural services delivery grant. The rural premium matters enormously for local authorities such as North Yorkshire, where distances are not a policy choice, but a geographical fact. Cutting that grant has had real consequences for the decisions that local authorities have to make, and those consequences are being borne by families in villages across the dales, across my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and in North Yorkshire more widely.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

On that point, my first ministerial job was as Local Government Minister, and I think that the hon. Member makes an excellent point about the importance of the rural services delivery grant to councils such as North Yorkshire, which incur extra costs in delivering services in rural areas. Does he agree that that is an important aspect of local government finance that needs to be considered when MHCLG is looking at allocations, and that it is particularly important to our rural county of North Yorkshire?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. It is one of the things on which we absolutely agree. I would like to see all parties and especially the governing party put that problem right. As I said, cutting the grant has had real consequences for the decisions that councils make.

Thirdly, we need to see expansion of the statutory minimum more broadly. The current system, which involves a 2-mile walking distance for primary, 3 miles for secondary and a duty that ends at age 16, was designed for a different era and different pattern of schooling. Where school systems have been reorganised, specialist provision has been concentrated and rural bus networks have been allowed to decline, the statutory floor is no longer fit for purpose.

Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that the Government will make data collection on home-to-school transport mandatory, as the PAC recommended? We cannot improve what we do not measure. Voluntary, inconsistent data collection across more than 100 local authorities is not a sufficient basis on which to run a £2.6 billion spending commitment. The Department needs a proper baseline if it is ever to hold local authorities to account and drive genuine improvement.

Home-to-school transport is not a niche issue. It sits at the intersection of SEND, rural sustainability, school attendance, the cost of living and the long-term viability of rural communities. In rural England, school buses are not a luxury, but essential infrastructure. Families across rural communities such as those in North Yorkshire are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a system that works, keeps their children safe, keeps them in school and does not price them out of the education to which they are legally entitled. There should not be a rural tax on education. That is not too much to ask, and I hope the Minister agrees.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Smith]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have talked about Settle college, which is threatened by kids going outwith the constituency and is worried about its numbers, but in the upper dales, too—we heard about the Thomases and others in Oughtershaw—children have to go over the top into Richmondshire or to Settle college, which is much further away than Upper Wharfedale school. The impact is that historical links between communities and villages, and between primaries and secondaries, are being broken, and these schools are vulnerable to tiny changes in rolls from year to year. I urge the Minister to reflect on the fact that many of us have fought to keep some of these schools open, and this policy really is having a negative effect. There are issues with the siblings policy, whereby the school attended by a sibling is no longer taken into account. I hope that this and other examples will be considered as North Yorkshire completes its review and considers its post-implementation procedures.

We heard the proposal from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to look again at the definition of a local school and at the rural services grant. I think we need an emergency brake to ensure that Settle, Upper Wharfedale and other vulnerable schools are protected, and that one policy—in North Yorkshire or other counties—does not undermine schools. Parents also want to understand the opportunities for voluntary contributions. That interacts with commercial bus services; what are the options there? Above all, there is a need to look at the appeals process. Is the Department for Transport allowed to look at cases? In the case of Oughtershaw, it is just impossible to get over to the recommended school in winter; the Department had not really done an assessment of that.

[Tom Gordon]

It came to my attention that a freedom of information request to North Yorkshire council uncovered emails that suggested that the Conservative leader of the council was suggesting that there should not be more than one Liberal Democrat sitting on any of the council’s appeal panels. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need full transparency to understand what has been going on there and how the council might have been looking to fix who sits on those appeal panels?

[Sir Julian Smith]

Well, I thank the hon. Member for that point. [Laughter.] All I would say is that, knowing the personalities involved and their integrity, I think North Yorkshire council has been grappling with a difficult challenge. It accepts that there will have to be changes. It is key that we move forward, and a way to do that is to ask whether there can be a more empathetic approach to appeals and whether North Yorkshire can look at some of the points that the hon. Member and others have made about the fact that we are such a sparse area and need some changes. Ultimately, though, this falls on the Government. Although a small increase in home-to-school funding was earmarked in the previous local government funding settlement, it did not reach the need and the amount of money that North Yorkshire spends. We really need the Government to look at the specific needs of rural education, and to look again at how to assess sparsity and rural factors, in this and every other policy they have a part in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this incredibly important debate and on setting out this deeply concerning issue eloquently and passionately. It does not affect his constituency alone; as we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, it is an issue right across the country, from Yorkshire right the way down to Kent and Sussex, and everywhere in between.

It feels a bit basic and obvious to say this, but it bears repeating: every child deserves to be able to get to school. There is a legal requirement to educate our children, and their ability to get there is a fairly basic right. They also deserve to get to school safely, efficiently and on time, yet the shocking stories that we have heard from around the country show just how hard that is for far too many children. The fact that the changes in Yorkshire mean that parents are being charged almost £900 for bus passes is, frankly, ridiculous.

Sadly, those stories are symptoms of wider failures by a number of Administrations to consider the needs of rural communities and SEND families. As a London MP and a born-and-bred London girl, both of whose children walk fewer than 10 minutes to get to their primary and secondary schools, I hesitate to talk about rural communities, but I hear from colleagues in my party and others about the real challenges of getting to school in rural communities. I have seen that when I have been on visits to Shropshire and talked to families and schoolteachers.

Under the last Conservative Government, bus services withered. Between 2015 and 2023, the number of local passenger journeys fell by a quarter—1 billion trips—and many routes were scrapped altogether. We have heard today about the Public Accounts Committee’s recent report on SEND home-to-school transport, which highlighted the ongoing decline of bus services, particularly in rural areas. It notes:

“Better local transport options…would reduce home to school transport costs”.

I will address the soaring costs that local authorities face when it comes to home-to-school transport, but I will first take a moment to focus on the fact that it is the most vulnerable in society who are impacted by poor transport provision. I find it somewhat surprising that the Department for Education seems to have little interest in what transport looks like for those who use it. As we have heard, it does not collect clear data about who receives home-to-school transport or whether it is reaching those in need.

As we have heard from Members from both sides of the House, children are being made to feel that their education does not matter because of where they live. They miss after-school clubs and activities and are made to walk on unsafe roads, often in the dark before school starts. As we have heard very clearly from some case studies today, parents are forced to sacrifice their time and income to drive their children to school, all because a computer said no—because of the rules that have been put in place by their local authorities. Grandparents or other extended family members are forced to go out of their way and step up when no one else is able to—although, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) pointed out, Cornwall to Kent seems rather extreme and pushing it somewhat.

There is, however, a larger underlying issue here. We have seen the costs of home-to-school transport soar alongside the need for SEND provision. While the Government have made the welcome move of committing to write off local authorities’ historic SEND deficits, that, sadly, does not extend to transport costs. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been urging the Government to exempt SEND transport operators from the Government’s national insurance contribution increases to curb further cost increases.

I hope the Minister will address that issue in her response today and will set out what the DFE is doing to address it now. Pushing it into the reforms that we have seen announced, which we know are going to take years to implement, will be too slow to address this particular issue.

The cancellation of a number of planned special schools around the country does not help this situation. I strongly urge the Minister to revisit and reverse the cancellation of planned special schools. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) said, if the specialist provision was closer to home, we would not need to spend quite so much on home-to-school transport.

[Tom Gordon]

I have been campaigning since before I was elected to get the special school for autism in Bilton Woodfield reopened. The situation has now been dragging on for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see North Yorkshire council, the trust that has now been appointed and the DFE work together to get that open on time for this September?

[Munira Wilson]

I 100% agree that they need to crack on as soon as possible.

The challenge we had with the Government announcements before Christmas was that some local authorities were given the option to crack on with the special school or be given money instead. From talking to councillors on the ground who went for the money, I know that it is not going to be anywhere close to what they need to cover the provision that they were looking for, but they felt kind of forced to take that option.

I am really worried about what these announcements will mean for the continued ferrying of children with special educational needs and disabilities very far away from home. Parents of children with SEND battle against the system enough as it is. It seems really unfair that they are now being made to choose between the right school for their child, but not being able to get them there without further sacrificing time and income, and getting their child to a school, but not one that can actually provide the right support.

A number of hon. Members have today highlighted the cliff edge in transport provision for students over 16 both with and without SEND. Local authorities do not have a duty to provide a universal transport system after the age of 16. For young people with SEND, their access to education is at the discretion of their local authority. Given what we have heard about financial pressures, it is sadly no surprise that young people with SEND are around 80% more likely to not be in education, employment or training than the average student.

The Public Accounts Committee has said:

“the Department appears unconcerned about the clarity of offering for this age group or the impact that losing transport at 16 may have.”

My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who cannot be here today, told me that the cost of a Stagecoach South West termrider increased in September 2025 from £238 per term to £444 per term. Sixth-form students who are not entitled to free transport are being forced to pay more than £1,300 per academic year to access education. I want to be clear with the Minister that the increase was due to the rise in national insurance contributions, which meant that, over and above all the other inflationary cost pressures faced by the company, like many others, it needed to generate an additional £3,500 per year per vehicle to make ends meet.

In the light of the Milburn report published last week and the shocking numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, it is deeply disappointing that the Government’s policy on national insurance has exacerbated the problem. Like me, the Minister is a London MP. We are very fortunate that our 16 to 18-year-olds have free transport to be able to get to college and education, so this is not an issue for our constituents, but it is shocking to read those numbers for residents in other parts of the country.

I understand that local authorities are under immense financial pressure. As was rightly said by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is no longer in his place, home-to-school transport is a problem for all political colours, right across the country. Sadly, the policy on national insurance has made the problem worse. I hope that the Minister will consider the exemption I called for, and I echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for the Government to review and update national guidance on home-to-school transport. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the passion with which he has campaigned for his constituent in the terrible case of Lewis. I urge the Government to look at safeguarding standards for home-to-school transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

This has been an involved and thoughtful discussion. I appreciate the cross-party support for this issue across the Chamber; it is one of the few areas where the right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) and I see relatively eye to eye. I appreciate them both turning up today to make this case to the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council.

It was, as always, fantastic to hear from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on the work she does around disabled children and SEND. She is one of the best voices I have heard in this place on those subjects. Hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) regarding the horrendous situation he outlined and Lewis being physically restrained is heart- breaking. I hope he gets a solution and the accountability that is needed.

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I would love it if she could be open to the further conversation she mentioned and make sure we can rule out things such as the nearest available walking routes to schools including river and motorway crossings and so on. There might be something in the statutory guidance that we could tease out to put some prohibitions on those things being part of those calculations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered home-to-school transport.

Pride Month

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is a huge privilege to follow that incredible contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). I think many of us in this place recognise a lot of the experiences he talked about—many of us who know what it is to be holding hands with the person we love as we walk down the street, and then to see someone turn the corner and immediately let go of our loved one’s hand, because we do not know if it is safe to continue holding the person we love close.

I pay particular thanks to the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for her powerful speech. She is doing incredible work to support LGBT+ rights, and she shared a powerful contribution from her constituent that it was very important to put on the record. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) not only for his powerful words, but for giving Hansard a real job with his foreign language skills.

There are those who say that we do not need Pride any more—that we have achieved equality; that discrimination and hate based on sexuality and gender is no longer tolerated in this country—but there are also those who say that Pride is not suitable for children with “impressionable minds”, that gay men are “poofs” who mince about, and that if LGBT people “want acceptance”, they need to

“stop making a big song and dance about it”.

Homophobic comments like these will sadly be familiar to many in this Chamber and across the country. To my mind, such intolerant views are profoundly un-British; they are also the words of Reform’s candidate in the Makerfield by-election. I do not think there could be a clearer demonstration of why we still need Pride, and why we still need today’s debate, than that.

I am proud to say that my constituency of Bracknell hosts its own Pride, which will celebrate its fourth year this July. Growing up as a young gay boy in Berkshire—my hon. Friend the Minister grew up in Berkshire herself— I never thought I would see a time when not only Reading, but smaller towns across our county, had a Pride. Wokingham, Windsor, Newbury and other towns all now celebrate Pride every year. This is important, because Pride should be celebrated in every community so that every person can feel that they are loved and included, wherever they come from and whoever they are. I remember how, growing up gay, I sometimes felt like I would never belong. That could be an incredibly isolating feeling. Even in the 2000s, it was very scary for me to come out, knowing that not everyone would accept me for who I was. I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has worked so hard to bring Bracknell Forest Pride to where it is today, and I look forward to celebrating with them later this summer. I want every young LGBT+ person growing up in Bracknell Forest not to have to feel the fear I experienced growing up.

In her opening speech, the Minister rightly recognised that the progress made on LGBT+ rights has been hard won, and that the battle for a society where LGBT+ people can truly live without fear of hate and discrimination is far from over. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, this Government have acted to equalise hate crime law, so that victims of homophobic hate crimes can know that perpetrators will be fully held to account. We are bringing LGBT+ veterans the justice they deserve after the suffering they have endured, and we are issuing nearly half a million pounds-worth of specialist funding for LGBT+ domestic violence services, as well as committing £21 million over the next three years to support the LGBT community internationally in this time of increasing hostility towards our community nationally and globally. We must now go one step further by delivering on our manifesto commitment to a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, as we have committed to doing in the King’s Speech.

Those measures are welcome and important, but I cannot in good conscience say that the path of progress in this country is straightforward, even now and even under this Government. I will briefly touch on the draft EHRC code of practice laid before Parliament, which many Members across the House have mentioned. I recognise and respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is a narrow and specific judgment about a specific aspect of the Equality Act, but I do not think that in order to make the world safer for women, we must make it less safe for trans people. I have real concerns that where the new EHRC guidance was supposed to bring clarity, it has instead brought only more anxiety, fear and confusion. The Government can and must find a way forward that balances the rights of women and of trans people. If we fail to do that, we risk the safety of both groups, and risk entrenching ourselves in a divisive culture war that we can and must move beyond.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I sit alongside the hon. Member on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and he does phenomenal work there, including on the code of practice and the issues that he is outlining. Does he agree that it is worrying that whenever anyone in this House or outside this place tries to defend trans people, we see transphobia slip into homophobia and other languages of hate? The same tropes are being used against other people, in hopes of shutting them up. Does he share my concerns about the chilling effect that has on our democracy and the rights of LGBT people in the UK?

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Member makes a profoundly important point. We have all seen the conversation around preserving the rights of everyone in our society—women and trans people—increasingly made into a political football and into something deeply personal. A lot of that is being driven by social media. Every Member who chooses to speak in today’s debate will have weighed up whether the comments they are making will be clipped and pushed out on social media, and whether they will receive abuse because of what they have chosen to say in this place. That is profoundly wrong. While I recognise that feelings from those on both sides of this issue often go well beyond the pale, it is incumbent on all of us in this place, whatever our views on this delicate and important issue, to treat the debate with the respect and dignity that those affected by it deserve. That is fundamentally where we need to get to on this important issue.

The hon. Member kindly highlights my role on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I sit alongside him. That reminds me that the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which has been rightly championed in today’s debate, was passed in large part because of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that confirmed that trans people have the right not to be outed under article 8. A lot of us have spoken today about how important it is that we feel able to be our authentic selves and to come out. It is incumbent on us all to create a society where LGBT+ people feel that they can live their authentic lives and be honest about who they are. I also think that we all have a profound right to keep personal matters private, if that is what we choose. One of my concerns—it has been raised by many Members today—is that the draft code of practice undermines that human right to privacy, which is set out in law.

This is a really challenging debate to be part of. At times, it has been overwhelming, because I am so proud of my party’s record on LGBT+ rights and because, if I am being honest with myself, I think that reputation is at risk. We are at risk of losing our reputation as the party of equality, and our very soul as the Labour party, if we are not willing to stand up for the rights of everyone, including the LGBT+ community.

I want to finish on a slightly happier note by wishing everyone in Bracknell Forest and beyond a very happy Pride Month. This is a time to remember, to celebrate hard-won rights and freedoms, and to look forward with a renewed sense of community and hope for the future—for everyone in our great country: all members of the diverse communities that call it home, including, today in particular, all members of the LGBT+ community.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—I will call him my friend—for starting the debate. I particularly welcome their comments about the importance of healthcare when it comes to supporting our LGBTQ community. Having spoken to LGBTQ+ people in Harlow, I know that there is still a real stigma when it comes to healthcare, and it is really important that we continue to talk about that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her incredibly powerful contribution. I did quite well—I lasted about 10 minutes into her speech before the tears came. She talks about LGBTQ+ rights in a way that is powerful and real. The bit that got me was when she started talking about her constituent’s experiences.

I do not want to get told off for not mentioning Harlow, so I pay tribute to everybody in my constituency who has worked so incredibly hard to make Harlow Pride a success. I feel very sorry for racist and homophobic people, because they miss out on the opportunity to go to some absolutely incredible events. I get to go to Pride events and to religious and cultural events, and I have a bloody good time. I am very proud of that.

I am a proud ally of the LGBTQ+ community, because I truly believe that no one should ever face persecution or abuse for being who they are, or for who they are in love with. That is hugely important. However, I am an LGBTQ+ ally who does not always get it right, and we should be honest with ourselves about that. It is always quite daunting to give the last speech in a debate, as I often do—except when I seconded the King’s Speech; just saying!—but it was particularly daunting today, because every single contribution was absolutely incredible. Every single Member who has spoken in this debate should be incredibly proud of themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who has been a friend of mine for many years, said that he was doing his small part in this debate. No; he does a massive part to support the LGBTQ+ community in his constituency and the wider country, so he should be particularly proud.

I feel quite positive in this space. The last Labour Government introduced civil partnerships and adoption rights, and got rid of the divisive section 28. When I talk to previous teaching colleagues who are gay about section 28, they still shudder at it, and they talk about that time with anxiety and a huge degree of fear. As my hon. Friend said, there was a generation of young people who were terrified to admit who they were, and that must have been absolutely awful. I criticise the last Tory Government for a lot, and I am always wary about being nice about the Tories, because last time I was, the Leader of the Opposition tried to recruit me, which was a bit weird. However, I pay tribute to the last Conservative Government for the equal marriage legislation that they took through Parliament.

I am glad that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), is in her place, because during the LGBT+ History Month debate last year, I had the opportunity to mention my late Uncle Stephen. She and the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who is not here, said, “Hear, hear” when I mentioned my uncle, and I am genuinely very grateful for that. I again proudly say the name Stephen Vince in this place. He was let down by our society because he was gay, but he was one of the warmest, kindest people I have had the opportunity to know. I am very proud to be able to talk about him, and the fact that he was my uncle. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. May he never be forgotten.

However, I also stand here with some fears. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh—he is getting a lot of mentions today—talked about the decision by Reform-led Essex county council to ban Pride advertising in libraries, including in Harlow, and I am very concerned about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) spoke of his concerns—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh, to mention him again—about people, not necessarily from Reform, deciding which books people should be able to read. I say this a little bit in jest, but I think hon. Members will understand why I say it: my son does not want to be a hungry caterpillar. The idea that reading books with LGBTQ+ role models in them will suddenly make young people gay is just nonsense, is it not? Let us be really honest about that.

Those books are really important for young people who are LGBTQ+ and are looking for direction and guidance, but it is also important for people like me to read about the LGBTQ+ community in books, and for that to be commonplace. I am a bit of a “Star Trek” fan—I am going off on a tangent, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this was not so long ago—and I remember how, in “Deep Space Nine”, Jadzia Dax kissed another woman. Do other hon. Members remember that episode? There was outrage, and that is just unbelievable to me. We should be really proud that we live in a society where members of the LGBT community, who should be able to walk down the street holding hands, can do so and not feel the way my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell described.

[Tom Gordon]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman looks fantastic when he turns up to Pride events in the glad rags that I am sure he wears. An interesting thing happened to me a few weeks back when I went for dinner at my mum’s. My little niece was there with my middle sister. My middle sister and I have a very interesting relationship; we do not get along very well. With me, I had a friend—a Liberal Democrat member, who was off out knocking on doors ahead of the local elections—and my little niece, who is at primary school, turned to me and said, “Is that your friend or partner?”. It was an incredibly poignant moment for me, and I thought, “Gosh, I may not necessarily see eye to eye with my sister, but she’s done a good job raising her kid.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the world is a better place when kids have an open mind and can ask such questions, and are inquisitive and not hateful?

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I do not thank him for overtaking me in the marathon on mile 5—a long way ahead of the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). The insight into the hon. Gentleman’s family Christmases is fascinating, but he makes a valid point, as he often does in this place. He gives me the opportunity to mention that I used to be a teacher, which I have not done yet today—[Laughter.] I thank him for that. [Interruption.] I did not teach in Harlow, actually! I think about when I first started teaching in 2005, up until when I finished teaching in 2020. I did see that shift. When I first started teaching, a young person who was openly gay would have been subject to ridicule. I am not saying that we are in a perfect world where that no longer happens, but I certainly saw more young people at school in 2020 who were happy to be open about their sexuality, and that is something we should celebrate.

There are challenges, too. I do not want to end on a negative, but I have just started reading Esther Ghey’s book about the horrendous murder of her daughter. It shows the horrendous impact of transphobia and we need to be really mindful of that, although equally there is hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I am wearing my Conservative pride badge, so I am quite happy to wear a flag, as are many in our party. As I say, the Conservative party roundly believes in treating everyone equally before the law, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation.

The original rainbow flag is a widely recognised symbol. I am wearing it today to show respect and support for gay people. My personal view is that the traditional rainbow flag already rightly brings us together and has a sense of unity. Its purpose should be to bring us together, not to divide us. The progress pride flag, by contrast, can be seen by some as a symbol of identity politics, somewhat atomising society into different and divisive identities. Therefore, I am comfortable with our position in not being behind it in the way that the hon. Member described, but I fully respect his opinion, and I fully respect that other people feel differently.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mims Davies]

No, I will conclude.

There has been a lot of agreement in the Chamber, but let’s be real: it is not going to be universal—that is the reality of politics and life today. Let me reiterate the phrase “safe, fair and equal”—there should be equality under the law regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. That is my view.

It would be remiss of me not to give an update from the Dispatch Box about Jed and Elliot’s wedding— I know that you were waiting for the next instalment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Next month on the Isle of Wight, we will finally see the wedding. It is one of the most exciting things to be happening, and I am delighted to be part of that celebration, as are so many. I am also delighted to be reading at the wedding.

I am very proud of the Conservatives’ successes. We have heard from others about same-sex marriage, the Turing law pardons, the apology to LGBT veterans, progress on HIV testing and PrEP, fair blood donation rules and the real practical progress that we have made to change lives.

We all welcome Pride Month as a time to celebrate the contributions of the LGBT people that we know and love both locally and in our national life, and we want more of them in our national life. We honour the progress made and commit ourselves to work for a future always grounded in fairness, respect and genuine equality for all under the law.

Village Schools

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Manuela Perteghella]

My hon. Friend puts it so well. I will come to the challenges of transport in rural areas shortly.

I have received so many powerful accounts from my constituents showing how a school and its community reach each other, for example, through festivals organised by parents, bacon bap mornings, Santa’s sleigh, and tree planting with residents. Those experiences give children a sense of belonging and pride in their place, and teach them about the wider community. I thank every parent, carer and resident past and present who wrote to me and has worked so hard to support Great Alne in difficult circumstances.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned those involved in making sure that schools function. For village schools across my area, such as in Scotton and Burton Leonard, parent teacher associations are having to fund the bare minimum and basics. Temporary classrooms that are not fit for purpose are now being used permanently. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a better funding model for village schools?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Absolutely. As they are unique, the Government need to look again at how these important schools—these community hubs—are funded. I will continue to make the case for support, stability and a future for Great Alne primary school.

In parts of the country, including mine, there are growing concerns about how school transport arrangements are being handled. In Warwickshire, those concerns have intensified following proposals brought forward by the Reform-run county council. It has become clear, from both the consultation documents and the council’s public statements, that the leadership does not fully understand the realities of rural life in south Warwickshire. The Reform-run county council’s new policy suggests that unlit rural lanes can still be considered safe walking routes for children. It assumes that pupils, including those with additional needs, can rely on public transport that does not exist in many rural villages. It implies that families can use disability benefits to fund transport that should be statutory. Those ideas reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the geography of south Warwickshire and the pressures that families face every single day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that critical issue. I would be happy to raise it to ensure that the impact on school places is taken into account as part of the decision making. I thank him for championing it.

We recognise these challenges. That is why we published “Running rural primary schools efficiently”, which examines how to run small rural schools effectively. Alongside it, “Opening and closing maintained schools” sets out statutory guidance for local authorities considering school closures. The guidance includes a presumption against the closure of rural schools. That does not, however, mean that a rural school will never close, but the case for closure must be strong and it must be clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area.

I also want to respond to the points that have been made about home-to-school transport. We believe that it is critical for supporting children into education. I understand that Warwickshire county council has written to the Secretary of State with proposals to ask children to walk a greater distance, and the Secretary of State has responded very strongly against those proposals.

[Tom Gordon]

The home-to-school transport issue has affected people across North Yorkshire. One of the campaigners, Jo Foster, has been leading and working with the School Transport Action Group and has highlighted the inconsistency in the local authority’s approach. It used to be catchment-based, which makes sense in big rural areas that follow dales, rather than insisting that children must go to the nearest school geographically as the crow flies, which does not make sense. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that local authorities listen to parents on the ground and ensuring that children can get to the schools their siblings go to, on the routes that they used to be able to reach by public transport? That simply does not exist under these new provisions.

[Georgia Gould]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, on which we are working with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. If he writes to me about his specific concerns, I will make sure that they are raised as part of our ongoing work.

Ministers have no direct role in the local statutory process or decision-making arrangements for changes to maintained rural schools. These decisions rest with the local authority. We understand that Warwickshire county council has begun the pre-statutory process for a potential closure by 31 August 2026, which includes full consultation with parents, staff and the wider community. This is a significant decision, and we recognise the strength of local feeling. Our priority remains ensuring that every child receives the highest-quality education, and we will continue to work closely with Warwickshire county council throughout this process to achieve that goal. I welcome the specific points that have been made, and I will follow up on everything that has been discussed today.

Question put and agreed to.

Holidays During School Term Time

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am privileged to open today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank not only Natalie Elliott, the creator of the petition, but the 181,598 signatories who have made today’s debate possible. I also thank the Petitions Committee team for their work, including the comprehensive programme of engagement they organised in advance of today’s debate. I launched my own public consultation on this issue and have received thousands of responses, and I will try to reflect the views of those I have been lucky enough to have interacted with in preparing for the debate.

Let me start by laying out the key frustration of the people who signed the petition. Holidays are expensive, and as we all know their price jumps hugely during typical holiday seasons. Unfortunately, market forces mean that many families simply cannot afford a holiday during school breaks. One parent from Keighley told me that she was quoted £1,000 more per person for a February half-term holiday than for one the following week, meaning an identical family holiday would cost thousands of pounds more simply because it was taken during school holidays. This view was reflected by so many families who feel they are being priced out by what is clearly predatory pricing from holiday companies.

It is worth pausing to seriously consider the value of a holiday. Holidays are not just frivolity; big or small, near or far, they provide a crucial few days for family members to breathe, spend time with one other and fortify themselves against the next 12 months of work and school. That is even more valuable now that many families have two working parents. Holidays are also a vital part of expanding a child’s horizons. There is an important sentiment that we should go away from home not just to see how we might improve our wellbeing, but because, when we return, we will be able to cherish all the more those things we find good and familiar.

Holidays can provide educational and vocational experiences that are impossible to replicate in the classroom. Sarah, a parent from Haworth in my constituency, told me that holidays helped her children

“get out of their comfort zone, learn something new and experience new cultures”.

Another parent, a dairy farmer from Skipton, said school holidays are the busiest time of the year on their farm, and that term-time breaks are the only opportunity to take time away as a family, reinforcing the balance between work, rest and family life.

It is not unreasonable that families should aspire to an annual family holiday, with all the benefits I just outlined, but parents are rightly concerned that the current system, which allows fines to be used for even a single unauthorised absence and requires that they be considered if a child is absent for five days in any 10-week period, criminalises them for simply wanting time with their children—not to mention the economic cost of the fines themselves. Jack, a young man from Keighley, shared that his single mother was repeatedly threatened with fines and even legal action for absences that they could not afford to avoid. He described the stress that that caused their family as “crushing”.

The fundamental challenge is that those on both sides of this debate can claim to have the best interests of a child at heart. Attendance is, of course, important, but so are family time and the educational and recreational benefits of a good holiday. We should not be pursuing attendance for attendance’s sake, or pursuing it solely because high attendance might look good in an Ofsted inspection. We need only look at the devastating effects of school closures during covid to see the catastrophic consequences of persistent absenteeism: learning is damaged, safeguarding signs are missed and children miss out on key opportunities to socialise into society. But when we consider just a few days a year for a family holiday for otherwise present children, are we really talking about the same issue? As one teacher who responded to my survey put it:

“Just because a child is physically in the building does not mean they are learning—a child who is burnt out or anxious may gain far more from a few days’ respite with family.”

It is surely true that the parents paying these fines and objecting to feelings of having broken the law are the same parents who are generally law abiding and value their children being in school. The fines are not successfully tackling the national scandal of persistent absenteeism in the wake of covid, and yet they are wreaking havoc for otherwise well-meaning families. Indeed, 487,300 penalty notices for unauthorised absences were issued in the 2023-24 academic year, an increase of 22% on 398,800 in the previous year.

At local level, many local authorities have attempted to adjust processes to improve attendance, with little to no positive impact. In Bradford, the council has issued 11,565 fixed penalty notices this year alone. Views on the issue are certainly not settled. As a serving headteacher who responded to my survey put it:

“There are only 190 school days per year and a huge amount of learning coverage to get through in the National Curriculum. A child taking ‘just’ 10 days leave each year of their statutory education would miss a staggering 25 full weeks of their education—that’s well over half a year’s lost learning time.”

On one level, there is the challenge of how we tackle absenteeism effectively without punishing parents seeking to enrich the lives of their children, and on another there is the challenge of ensuring that that does not have an impact on a child’s education.

Another hugely important area is children with special educational needs and disabilities. As we know, the SEND system is in crisis, for a whole range of reasons. For many SEND families, a family holiday is one of the key opportunities to decompress from the stress, but the busy holiday period is too much for many SEND children to handle. Natalie was very keen to put that point to me when we had our initial discussions before this debate.

For some SEND families, off-peak holidays are not a matter of money or convenience; they are a wellbeing requirement for their child. Why should a child struggling with SEND be denied the same access to a holiday as a non-SEND classmate by the threat of fines being issued to their parent? Sophie, the mother of a 10-year-old recently diagnosed with learning difficulties, told me that her daughter

“thrives and comes out of her shell”

when abroad, saying that the trips are about building confidence and life skills. Another parent, who cares for a child with autism, said that the crowded peak periods are simply impossible for their family to manage and that off-peak breaks are often the only realistic option. It is absolutely true that SEND children have some of the biggest challenges with absenteeism from the classroom, but in the grand scheme of things, are the few days of a family holiday for a child who is generally in school the days that schools and local authorities should be going after, or should other matters be considered?

It is clear that the existing model is broken on a purely practical level. For a parent with multiple children in different schools, the situation becomes even more complex. In my outreach, I heard from a number of families about the nightmare of getting permission for one child to be absent, but not getting it for the other. The parents are then left asking themselves whether to call the whole holiday off or take the financial hit. How do they make sure that one child is not blamed by another for the cancellation of their family holiday? The likelihood of getting permission can vary wildly between schools and local authorities. Government guidance has been issued, but it is clearly being treated as just that.

I want to finish with what I hope might be a solution to help us sidestep the issue that we are considering. Parents should not have to feel that they are battling the state to get the best for their child; they should be able to rely on the state to help them. Academies already possess the power to alter their term dates, provided that they meet the minimum requirement for annual teaching time. I know of a number of schools that have successfully used those powers to provide odd weeks within their school year outside term time. That slight change in term dates creates opportunities for many parents and cleanly sidesteps the whole issue, creating off-peak holiday time that is accessible to families who would otherwise feel that they had to take a term-time holiday. I stress that it does not reduce the overall hours of learning that a child undertakes annually; it merely redistributes them throughout the year. What is more, providing a clear, comprehensive week of holiday outside peak times empowers heads to remain strict about term-time holidays that are taken regardless.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The steps that the hon. Member is outlining seem clear and pragmatic. Local children used to take time off school to go to the Great Yorkshire Show. He talked about expanding horizons and the educational and vocational understanding of things. Does he agree that another pragmatic step would be allowing time off school for people to enjoy things like the Great Yorkshire Show?

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the Petitions Committee for accepting this debate. The e-petition received over 200 signatures from my constituents in Chichester. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I put on record thanks from the parental organisations and advocacy organisations, because I know she has reached out and asked to speak to them ahead of the White Paper’s publication, which is really appreciated. Time and again, when talking to parents, teachers and those in local authority about the SEND system, I hear the word “adversarial” and that it is failing to deliver for our young people. Parents often feel pitted against their school, or even against other parents, in a system that is complex to navigate and distressing for all involved.

Where West Sussex county council is concerned, parents report a pattern that has been cited by many Members on both sides of the Chamber today. In the latest quarterly figures, it managed to put in place just 14.3% of all EHCPs within the 20-week statutory framework, which puts it among the worst councils in England on timelines. When an EHCP is refused, even after lengthy assessments, families appeal, then on the eve of the tribunal, the council concedes and issues the plan—but often, that is only the start of the process for those families. It wastes months that a child does not get back, and it wastes public money on process rather than provision.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

On exactly that point, the problem often starts earlier than that—in schools. My mum, a councillor in Wakefield, has been fighting to get my sister assessed for two years, but the school has lost the paperwork so we are no further forward. Does my hon. Friend agree, similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said, that we need more support in schools to make sure that people get the assessments they need?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many schools that I have spoken to in my constituency say they cannot fund a full-time SENCO; instead, they might share them with other primary schools in the area. SENCOs are at the frontline of this issue. They want to deliver for the children they are asked to represent, but they are not paid enough nor given enough hours to do the job. We need decisions that get it right first time and support that starts when the need is identified, not after a courtroom date is set.

I welcome the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on neurodivergent screening and teacher training. His principle is simple: we must identify needs early, including dyslexia; equip teachers with the knowledge and confidence to respond in class; and make specialist pathways clear and timely for those who need them. As he rightly said in his moving contribution in the main Chamber, neurodivergence is not a weakness or a flaw; with the right support, it can be a superpower. If Ministers are serious about addressing the crisis in SEND, parent voice must be at the centre. Parents know their children best and what works, because they live with the consequences of policy every day. Change will command confidence only if families can see and feel the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

Siouxsie gave me a flag by which to remember young people with speech and language issues. That will be in my office, and I will think about those young people every day in this job. I am grateful to all the organisations and parents who have met me. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who hosted a really powerful roundtable and drop-in earlier so that I could hear from amazing schools that are leading inclusive practice, want to do this work and want to work with the Government.

I ran a council for seven years and spent 14 years in local government. I met so many parents in my own borough and many others who told me the problems with the system, which we have heard about really powerfully today. I met parents who could see that issues were starting early but were not listened to and had to fight for support. I met parents who found that there was no support available until there was a diagnosis. We heard so many stories of the months, and sometimes years, that parents and young people have had to wait. I met parents who found that not only education but wider services, such as playgrounds and youth services, were not set up for their children, or were living in very overcrowded housing and found it difficult to manage their children’s needs. I met parents who could not find local schools that could meet their children’s needs and parents—we heard examples of this today—who had had to give up work to be able to support their children.

I have met children who do not feel comfortable going to school because of their experiences when they were younger; one talked to me earlier about the trauma she had from having to go to a school that was not set up to meet her needs.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Georgia Gould]

I will make some progress as we do not have much time and there were so many different comments.

I have heard from young people who found when applying for college that their EHCP had not been updated since they were very young and colleges said they could not meet their needs. Some of the stories that are hardest to hear are those of people who have had to fight every single year, whose child is now 18, and who can see all the missed opportunities and feel so deeply let down, and of children have lost confidence in the support available.

Too many parents feel they have to arm up for battle when interacting with the system. They do not want to resort to the tribunal, but sometimes feel that is the only way to get support. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said that parents are exhausted. So many parents say that they are exhausted by having to fight and, heartbreakingly, that they feel broken by the system. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who criticised the comments by the Reform leadership attacking parents who are just fighting for their children to get the support that they need. I know parents will never give up, because they want to support their children.

We cannot start this discussion without acknowledging how many children and families have been badly let down by the system. Many within the system are also struggling: teachers who do not feel like they have the right training or support to meet need in the classroom, as we heard from so many Members today; schools that want more specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, for their children but do not have access to it; and local authorities that did not get the investment they needed to build a local offer and so are paying for expensive private provision far away from communities.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate.

This is, I believe, the fifth time in as many months that I have spoken on the ASGSF. I reiterate that it is not a luxury but a lifeline for some of most vulnerable children, many of whom desperately need consistent therapeutic intervention to cope with the traumas of loss, neglect and separation.

Although I am pleased to hear that the Government have committed to fund the ASGSF for another year, that will not undo the damage that children across this country have already faced. I recently met the Oakdale Group in my constituency, which provides therapeutic interventions through the support fund. Many families have expressed concern that a reduction in fair access will lead to poorer outcomes and the need for more therapy in the longer term.

Changing, suspending and tinkering with the ASGSF has led to a huge backlog of applications. Many children now face gaps of up to four months with no therapy at all. One family in my constituency is still waiting for their application to be accepted. For traumatised children, consistency is everything. The direct consequences of this Government’s actions have been severe: self-harm, suicidal ideation and thoughts, violence in the home and, in the most heartbreaking of cases, adoption break- down. The full impact of these cuts and delays is yet to be seen.

I ask the Minister directly: will she commit today to a permanent ringfenced fund, removing the need for year-on-year decision making? Will she restore certainty, stability and security for the children who depend on it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for all her comments. Over the last decade, the number of looked-after children in care has increased by 22% to 84,000. The previous Government have a lot to answer for. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are trying to make sure that we do intervention and prevention work early so that we support more families as early as we can. Through family group decision making, we are supporting support families and friends to come forward to provide a home for a child where that is the right thing for them.

More needs to be done. We are getting on with and trying to do a lot, but there is still so much more to address.

[Tom Gordon]

In an Adjournment debate on 3 April, the Minister said:

“This debate has given me the opportunity to talk about our plans to ensure that all adopted children get the support they need”.—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 558.]

Just a week and a few days later, she went on to cut the support fund and the fees that people could access through it. At the time of that debate, did she know that those cuts to the funds and access were coming?

[Janet Daby]

Just for clarification, at that debate I always said that more information would follow in due course. As soon as the decisions regarding the fund had been made, that information was laid before the House.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must continue to be grateful to the parents and carers of adopted and kinship children, in particular for the compassion and dedication they have shown in giving vulnerable children the chance of having a happy, stable home. I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ remarks, and I will continue to do so. I know the importance of this debate to many families outside this House. I and my officials will continue to work closely with families and sector representatives over the coming months to understand what support should be provided at a sustainable level.

Early Education and Childcare

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

I can tell from my hon. Friend’s question how passionate he is about these issues. This Government want to break down the barriers to opportunity to ensure that every child succeeds and thrives. I have already set out a number of measures that we are undertaking to deliver that, and I really look forward to working with him to ensure that every child in his constituency gets the best start in life, whatever their background.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I welcome the positive step towards providing affordable childcare. Coppice Valley primary school in my constituency is part of phase 1 of the scheme that the Minister outlined. However, it worries me that what he has outlined might come at the expense of private and voluntary sector providers, which deliver the majority of early years places. The new early years funding contract is putting huge strain on such providers, which are having to pass the unaffordable costs on to parents. The Minister has said that there will be a review of the funding in due course, but can he give us some more specific dates and timelines? Nurseries and parents cannot afford this issue in the meantime.

[Stephen Morgan]

It is really important that early years education is delivered in a way that is fair and affordable for parents. As a key part of the strategy we published earlier this year, I am very pleased that there are schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that will deliver the school-based nursery programme. As I mentioned in my statement, I visited one in Warrington last week that was a really good partnership between the school and a private provider. I really encourage him to look at that model to see how that could work in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

We have increased funding to improve the condition of schools to £2.1 billion for 2025-26, which includes more than £7 million for North Yorkshire to invest in its maintained schools, including Springhead. North Yorkshire has also been allocated £6.8 million for 2025-26 to provide suitable and accessible school places for pupils with SEND who require alternative provision.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

A number of years ago, Woodfield school in Bilton in my constituency was closed. It has been rebuilt as a specialist school for children with autism. It was meant to open in September last year, but that was delayed until September this year. Will the Minister meet me and confirm whether it will open on time this September?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am happy to meet the hon. Member.

Further Education Institutions

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon]

Indeed, and I note that FE colleges, on average, have a higher number of SEND pupils than others. They give really good opportunities for children with additional needs to thrive and to go on and educate, so I commend the work of her local college.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. One of the first things that I had to do after the general election was to ensure a funding guarantee of more than £20 million for a rebuild of Harrogate college. Due to the local authority dropping the ball, the planning expired and the funding period elapsed. I was grateful to work with the Labour Government to secure that funding. I do worry, though, about the £90,000 cut to Harrogate college’s adult skills funding. The response that I got from the Government said that that is now devolved to the Labour mayor. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more funding for our devolved mayors to ensure that we keep up adult skills funding?

[Anna Dixon]

I am pleased to hear that the Labour Government have secured the future of Harrogate college. I also agree that it is vital that, as the workplace changes, people keep their skills up to date with lifelong learning, so it is essential that we protect and maintain adult education funding. I would like to hear from the Minister on that. Will she outline the Government’s plans to ensure sustainable funding for FE colleges, as well as the ongoing support for adult education as mentioned?

Adoption and Kinship Placements

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

rose—

[Janet Daby]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) first.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for allowing me to intervene first. In the Adjournment debate that I held on this subject, the Minister responded,

“support for adopted children is critical. It can decrease the likelihood of adoption disruptions or breakdowns.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 555.]

In real terms to people on the ground, this is a cut, so will she acknowledge that the actions of her Government will have an impact on adoption breakdown and disruption?

[Janet Daby]

I absolutely recognise that the threshold and criteria have changed to enable us to reach as many children as possible under the current funding of £50 million. It is crucial that assessments continue for those children to enable them to have the right types of therapy. If Members allow me to press on, I will be able to respond a bit further to the many things they raised.

I turn to the point about adoption and special guardianship support funding not being available to all children living under special guardianship orders. The main reason that the fund is available only to previously looked-after children living under special guardianship or child arrangements orders is that previously looked-after children, such as those who have been in foster care or residential care, may face higher levels of vulnerability and disadvantage than their peers. These funds aim to provide targeted support to address the specific challenges associated with their prior experiences.

I was asked many questions about the kinship pilot and kinship funding, and I want to say more about the adoption and special guardianship support fund. On 14 April, the Department announced that the fund would be open to applications with changed criteria and a fair access limit of £3,000 per child per year, and that match funding and the separate funding of specialist assessments would be stopped. When assessed as having a need, families can approach their local authorities and regional adoption agencies. Adoption England is obviously working with regional adoption agencies. We also have specialist centres of excellence—a multidisciplinary approach to ensuring the essential provision that adopted children need.