Gender Self-identification

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

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

It is shocking that over 16,000 people are currently waiting for treatment at the London gender identity clinic alone, and that it is currently treating people referred in the summer of 2019. There are 6,225 children currently waiting on gender waiting lists, and waits of more than three years are completely normal. If it takes that long to achieve a first appointment, imagine how long it takes to achieve two medical assessments.

The NHS figures issued last week have completely confused me. According to NHS England, the figures on referral for treatment for the whole country state that only 147 people are waiting more than 104 weeks—that is two years—for any treatment. How is that possible? Are gender identity clinics not included in the figures? It makes no sense at all. I would be interested to know how those figures were come up with. How can we look trans people in the face and tell them that only 147 people are waiting for treatment, when we know that thousands and thousands are waiting for life-affirming treatment?

Fifty per cent of trans and non-binary youth have seriously considered suicide in the last year alone, driven by stigma, exclusion and hate. A local teacher from Dorset told me that he found it deeply upsetting to see young people who feel that their rights are being stripped away. He said the ruling is not just a setback for human rights but an act of erasure.

A trans constituent told me that we need a system that protects all women, including trans women, and went on to say:

“I am asking you to see me and help build a future where trans people don’t have to fight every day to exist.”

What a sad state of affairs.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect trans people? In Somerset, for example, trans hate crimes have increased from 119 to 179. While providing women-only spaces where they are needed, we need to do more to stand up for trans people who feel frightened and afraid and who are being attacked.

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

We talk a lot about the needs of trans women but very little about the needs of trans men. I am deeply concerned about the impact on trans men who might be forced to go into women’s toilets. Many of them do an amazing job of masking and appearing to be men. I am sure that most of us know people but have no idea they are trans men, because so many have fantastic facial hair—more so than some men I know—and incredible muscles and tattoos. Imagine being a trans man who is told that they have to go to a women’s refuge. Imagine being the women in that refuge when a trans man comes in and says, “I have to be here because I’m still treated as a woman.” That is just offensive.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If a trans person has to out themselves every time they go to the toilet, does the hon. Member believe, like me, that that fundamentally conflicts with the right to privacy under the European convention on human rights?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am shocked daily by the indignity that we are imposing and the impact on the human rights of people who are trans.

Let me share some just some of the words used by trans people about the current gender recognition system: “traumatic”, “intrusive” and “over-medicated”. I am pleased that one of our Liberal Democrat Members in the other place is looking at how we can remove the need for a spouse to consent. How can it be compliant with the human rights of a trans person if their spouse has to consent to their getting a gender recognition certificate?

The recent Supreme Court ruling has made life as a trans person so difficult, and calls into question the value of a gender recognition certificate. If trans people who have undertaken all that is required to achieve that status are still to be treated as though they remain in the sex that they were assigned at birth, what is the point of a gender recognition certificate? Self-ID seems to be the only viable alternative. If self-ID is not to be progressed, what assurance can the Minister give our trans constituents that a gender recognition certificate will become easier and quicker to attain? If a trans person has gone through many years of distress, treatment, cost and trauma, they deserve to be honoured and respected, and their legally acquired gender should be recognised.

I recently recruited a member of staff, who unfortunately did not stay with me very long because they found the whole process quite traumatic. The day before they were due to start, they emailed me to tell me that they thought I needed to know that they were trans. I was so upset that they felt the need to do that. What sort of world are we in when someone has to share that private information with me, as their employer, and then is so traumatised by it that they decide they cannot work in the role after all? I felt absolutely sickened. The Good Law Project recently stated that

“given the current hostile direction of travel in the UK…we do not think it is without risk to be on a State list of trans people.”

Let me go back to something the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said about death. I cannot imagine anything more awful than a parent losing a child, particularly in a violent death or a death by suicide, which we have seen in recent years, or losing somebody who has lived their life for many years in their acquired gender, and then not to be able to lay the person they love to rest in the gender in which they lived. There is no greater indignity than that. I beg the Minister: if we do nothing else, let us change it so that people do not need a gender recognition certificate for their death certificate. That is absolutely inhumane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I am grateful for the many thoughtful contributions from Members today. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee; I recognise the important reflection of trans voices that she brought to the Chamber. It was compassionate and absolutely right to recognise strong feelings and concerns on all sides. Friends, constituents and colleagues are affected by today’s debate. Dignity, understanding and respect are crucial. I am always mindful that we are talking about people in this debate or any debate, and listening to people, parents and communities is crucial.

Last month’s Supreme Court ruling importantly clarified the law as per the Equality Act. As we have heard today, many real practicalities still need to be agreed and implemented. Many constituents, including several of mine, have been in touch with their MPs to ask what the judgment means for them. The judgment rightly calls for the rights of trans and non-binary people to be upheld as per the Equality Act. It is no surprise that this wider uncertainty has resulted in this petition. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss where the Opposition sit on this matter and where the Government must simply do more in light of the concerns.

I agree that it is important to lead the discussions in the right tone, and that is always my approach. As the shadow Minister for Women, I believe that we must ensure that we work for a future in which women do not have to fight for their rights every time, and nobody has to keep fighting for all their rights every time. That reflects the comments of the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), which summed up this afternoon’s tone and approach.

Let me affirm on behalf of my party that we strongly believe that every individual should live a life of dignity, be free to live their lives and be safe—safety has been very much raised today. They should be supported in that. We are an inclusive party that is focused on equality. We will always stand up for the rights of women and girls, too.

[Vikki Slade]

How can the hon. Member square new clause 21 to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which would expose trans people in everything that they do, with her commitment to the safety of trans people? That does not seem to fit together.

[Mims Davies]

I think that it is a matter of fact that biological sex is crucial when it comes to correct service delivery and approach. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but when it comes to the understanding of treatment, it is important for there to be a distinction. But I understand the point.

Consider single-sex spaces such as refuges and NHS provision—screening programmes, for example: the protection and privacy of people, including women and girls, is paramount. However, as the hon. Lady just said, that must be balanced by the needs of others, so third spaces and understanding are also important. As I have already said, practicality is important. As many Members have said, this is not a zero-sum game for anybody, whether that is women and girls, and their safe spaces. As we have also heard, there must be suitable spaces for disabled people. This issue is about rounded equality for all. I truly believe that is vital.

We know that the Labour Government have not always necessarily agreed with the judgment in the recent case. Of course, Scottish Labour backed the SNP’s self-ID plans in Holyrood. Those were challenged in the Supreme Court and shown to be incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.

As we have heard again today, some people still have strong views about self-ID, which I recognise. However, for those concerned about the gender recognition certificate process, I highlight that that had already been reformed following feedback, which was rightly listened to. The then Government agreed with the GRC process, because it was hoped that it would create a balance between significant checks and balances within the system. But as we have heard today, different people take different stances.

In light of the ongoing debate and the Supreme Court judgment, it is now for this Government to find a way to clarify how they intend to implement their manifesto commitment to modernise and simplify the GRC process without compromising the rights of women and girls. Those buzzwords signify an intent to change, but what people living this right now want to know is the detail. Hopefully, the Minister will today start to clarify matters or begin to set a timetable for proposals to be scrutinised by the House, the public and all the different voices in this debate. That is crucial, because there is public concern that the Government may be introducing self-ID by the back door—not deliberately, but perhaps through processes that some may see as careless and others may see as suitable.

I address a specific point. It is a concern that Government Ministers have admitted that the Passport Office does not accurately record sex. A passport is one of the most recognised and commonly used Government issued IDs with a sex marker. Can the Minister say why the Government have not sought to remedy the situation? It clearly leaves a potential route for self-ID, creating uncertainty for service providers trying to comply with the law under the Equality Act. Today, we are talking about clarity; all concerned need clarity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

We are committed to securing the future of our higher education sector and we absolutely recognise its excellent economic value, which is crucial to our future economic growth. We welcome international students, who enrich our campuses, forge networks with domestic students and become global ambassadors. We will set out our plan for reform in the summer.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Over the past few months, Bournemouth University has had to take steps to suspend 15 of its courses due to financial pressures and rising operational costs. Most were arts and humanities courses, including English, photography, sociology and politics. What options exist for universities to access other sources of funding, and what assessment is being done to protect arts and humanities courses across our higher education sector?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for her level of concern. Higher education providers are autonomous and responsible for managing their own budgets. If they were at any risk, we would work with the Office for Students to ensure that students were protected. The Government reserve the right to intervene to protect the interests of students. The strategic priorities grant is also available to support teachers and students in higher education in more expensive subjects.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

I will not.

I will briefly mention Government amendments 166 and 167, which talk about data protection never getting in the way of safeguarding. One of my most difficult days as a teacher—the House will be pleased to know that it has nothing to do with the Conservative Government—was when a young person in my class came to me at the end of a lesson and said those terrible words that every teacher dreads: “I need to tell you something.” Despite my explaining to her that it could not be confidential, she made a disclosure—I will not go into it, obviously—and then begged me not to tell anyone, which is not an option for teachers or anyone in a similar position. It was heartbreaking to see how upset she was, but I reported it in the correct and proper way. Clearly, safeguarding is really important, and all professionals—not just those in education—who work with young people take it very seriously. General data protection regulation, or myths about GDPR and data sharing, should not get in the way of ensuring that our young people are safe in education and outside it.

I will finish on a lighter note, because I appreciate that I have got a little bit deep. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) discussed the educational merits of having an ice cream. I say to him that 1/3πr²h is the volume of a cone.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for schooling me in maths—I am not very good at that.

I begin by expressing my strong support for the Bill, particularly its efforts to enhance child protection and ensure better collaboration between professionals involved in children’s care. I welcome the measures in part 2 that seek to harmonise admissions and provide cost of living support for families, especially those from deprived backgrounds.

Parents whose children are in state-funded education deserve transparency. They should have access to clear information about their child’s education and be assured that schools and trusts are operating fairly, and I look forward to measures coming forward that are not in the Bill but which will really make a difference for children, such as the child poverty strategy, the SEND review and the curriculum review. However, there is one part of this Bill that I believe needs to be amended: the level of unnecessary scrutiny that is being imposed on parents who choose to home-educate their children. Rather than protecting them, elements of the proposed register risk putting such families in danger.

Let me be clear: I support the principle of the register. As corporate parents, local authorities need to know where children are if they are not attending school. Collecting some information and the reasons for elective home education is important, not only for child protection but so that authorities can plan for the future. We know that some children who are home-educated later return to school, and many parents make this choice because local education provision does not meet their child’s needs, either temporarily or permanently. That presents an opportunity for local authorities and multi-academy trusts to work collaboratively with families to ensure that curricula and school offerings are inclusive of their needs.

However, proposed new section 436C of the Education Act 1996, which governs the content and maintenance of the home education register, contains provisions that could have serious unintended safeguarding consequences, as suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). Under proposed new section 434A, in clause 25, the local authority must serve notice to both parents “unless exceptional circumstances apply”—for instance, in cases of domestic abuse or family estrangement. Yet proposed new section 436C, in clause 26, requires the register to include the name and home address of the child, both parents’ names and addresses, and the addresses of all places where education takes place. Crucially, there is no provision for exceptions in cases where sharing this information could put children at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

In that vein, does my hon. Friend accept that, as I mentioned, grandparents reading to their grandchildren could be considered as providing home education and should be inspected and reported on, and vital home education groups providing services free of charge could be driven out of business by the scale and weight of reporting they will have to provide?

[Vikki Slade]

I think a lot of people who do not know anything about home education miss the fact that there is a whole community of home educators, and home-educated children spend plenty of time with their peers, but they are just different peers—others who prefer to have their education outside a school environment—and there is a risk of such organisations being driven underground or lost altogether.

Under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, parents already have a duty to ensure that their child receives a suitable education, whether through school or otherwise, and local authorities can already conduct informal inquires and issue school attendance orders if they believe a child is not receiving an appropriate education, so this is simply overkill. A formal register would help to ensure accountability, but this is overreach. My amendment 221 proposes a more practical solution of requiring only those who provide more than six hours per week of education or activity to be included in the register. That strikes a reasonable balance by ensuring that key educators are identified without overwhelming families or local authorities.

While there are genuine safeguarding concerns, local authorities already have the power to intervene under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. The Victoria Climbié Foundation stated that the provision proposed in the Bill would have done nothing to help Sara Sharif because the local authority had already decided that the child was not at risk.

[Graham Stuart]

I hope colleagues in the other place will follow up on the hon. Lady’s excellent speech. To focus in on that point, if a register does go ahead—the hon. Lady supports that; I do not—it should start with the minimum requirements, and then it could be expanded if that is needed, rather than be spread out in this way. To reinforce the point she makes, local authorities already have the power to intervene if it appears to them that someone is not having a suitable education, and they have all the powers required if there are concerns about welfare. Conflating welfare and education in the way this Bill does particularly irritates and upsets home educators.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fact, Kathryn from my constituency wrote me a very long email talking about welfare versus education—two totally separate issues. People are really upset and would have been devastated and distraught to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) effectively make them feel like they were some sort of pariah. I was really upset to hear that, especially as I asked home educators in my constituency to listen to the debate and give me their feedback.

I support amendments 195 and 197, tabled by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), which seek clarity that educational activities outside regular school terms should not be subject to this overreach. My children are not subject to them, and children in home education should not be subjected to anything more than the rest of us. Children receiving education out of school should have the same rights to take their public examinations as their peers. It should not be based on a parent’s ability to fund that. After all, the Treasury already saves many thousands of pounds for every home-educated child. New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), would provide support for parents by providing for home-educated children to sit any relevant examination and to be fully funded where requested.

I thank the Minister for confirmation on one point: as I sat here this afternoon, I received a letter to say that the challenges faced by summer-born children will now be considered. I would like to pass on the thanks—[Interruption.] Well, I’ll save the rest of it for you.

I was not going to speak about academies, but as I sat here over several hours I received two more emails relating, in particular, to concerns about their governance. I heard the challenge from those on the Conservative Benches about the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on teachers, but I cannot tell the House how many times I hear complaints about the way staff and whistleblowers are being treated in multi-academy trusts. While I have sat here today, I have heard of another who has been suspended by a multi-academy trust. This is not about them getting better treatment; it is about them getting worse treatment. If teachers are treated badly and leave the sector, that has an impact on our children. It is about the children, not just the teachers.

In summary, I support the principles of the Bill, but I urge the Government to consider the amendments on excessive and potentially harmful requirements imposed on home-educated children. They are common sense amendments that would allow children to be protected without placing undue burdens on families.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the Bill and in support of the amendments that seek to increase access to free school meals, a policy that would make a world of difference to the one in two children living in poverty in my constituency, the most deprived in the country. I also want to pay tribute to the amazing teachers in all the schools in Liverpool Riverside who go above and beyond every single day, not only for the children but for their parents.

Research last summer showed that nearly one in five households with children were suffering from food insecurity. That is made worse by cruel and punitive policies, such as the two-child cap on benefits. Universal free school meals would go a huge way towards immediately alleviating the pressures that these families are facing. In the sixth richest country in the world, no child should go to school hungry and all children should be supported to achieve their full potential.

Some 47% of children in my constituency now live in poverty. If those children lived in London, Scotland or Wales, they would have access to universal free schools meals at primary school. However, because they live in Liverpool, many are forced to learn on an empty stomach. That is indefensible and unfair. The Government should take the opportunity presented by the Bill to put an end to that postcode lottery and extend free school meals for all so that no child goes hungry and no child is left behind.

The evidence is clear: the impact of universal free school meals is life changing. Research has found that they ease the financial burden on families, help children to focus in class, reduce stigma and foster stronger school communities. They far outstrip other policies in all those areas, including breakfast clubs and means-tested free school meal schemes.

Teachers in my constituency have told me about the devastating reality that they see every single day, with children coming to school unable to buy lunch and unable to concentrate or learn properly. No matter how bright a child is or how amazing a teacher is, hungry children cannot learn.

The problem is not just who qualifies for free school meals, but how many eligible children are missing out. Up to 250,000 children who should be receiving free school meals are not, due to a system that is inefficient, overly complex and burdensome for parents and schools alike. Families struggle with complicated registration forms, language barriers and a lack of awareness, with some parents avoiding applying due to stigma or embarrassment. The income threshold of £7,500 is incredibly low and has not risen for many years, and too many families living below the breadline are ineligible to access the support they need.

This desperately needs to change. Providing free school meals would not only guarantee at least one hot meal per day, but ease the financial burden on struggling families by saving them approximately £500 per child per year. Studies show that fewer than 2% of packed lunches meet school food standards, whereas a hot school meal ensures that children receive the nutrition they need to grow, concentrate and succeed. Research has shown that well-fed children perform better academically. Early findings suggest that children from non-white communities or single-parent households are disproportionately unregistered for free school meals, despite being entitled to them.

We should also see this policy as an investment in our future. Universal free school meals are proven to tackle health and educational inequalities, providing a long-term boost for our economic productivity and alleviating pressures on our healthcare systems. If we choose today to spend the money and roll out universal free school meals to all children at primary school, for every £1 we spend, we will generate £1.71 in core benefit returns—it is a no-brainer. We must put an end to the economically illiterate models of arbitrary fiscal rules and recognise what the evidence shows: investing in our children’s future is a sensible financial choice, as well as a just one.

After 14 years of Tory austerity, skyrocketing inequality and the lasting effects of the pandemic, now is the time for bold action. If this Government are truly committed to raising the healthiest generation of children ever, we must start by funding universal and nutritious free school meals for all. We have an opportunity to end the scandal of child hunger in our schools and give every child the foundation they need to learn and thrive. I call on the Government to get behind these new clauses and amendments today so that no child in this country is left hungry, and no child is left behind.

School Accountability and Intervention

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his service, which is hugely important. We often do not recognise enough the work that governors undertake and the important role they play in our school system. We thank all school governors for their service and encourage more people to sign up.

In response to my hon. Friend’s initial comment, he may be interested to know that between January 2022 and December 2024, 40% of schools in a category of concern took over a year to convert to sponsored academies. That is too long. We need to intervene more quickly, which is why we will use the opportunity of a more diagnostic Ofsted report card to identify where improvements need to happen so that we can get in there with RISE teams much earlier—as soon as a school has failed its inspection—and no longer focus solely on structural intervention, as he said, but on however school improvement can be best undertaken.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

One of the most common areas of casework in Mid Dorset and North Poole involves children with special needs. Parents often cite awful experiences of children being manipulated out of school by those schools being made truly hostile places for them and by failures, often at a trust level, to provide even low-cost or no-cost changes, with parents completely ignored in the process. I am interested in understanding why the Minister has not included full accountability and judgments at multi-academy trust level in the reforms, because parents simply have nowhere to go when they need to complain and the problem is with the trust.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the issue and what she says sounds very concerning. We are looking at multi-academy trust level accountability and how parents can engage in the relationship with schools, ensuring that the proper lines of accountability are available. I will continue to keep that under review and will report on it in due course.

Education, Health and Care Plans

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

The current system is creating a horrendous conflict environment and a depressing, stressful professional working experience for teachers and support staff. Parents are spending their lives fighting, costing their own mental health and livelihoods, and councils are on the brink of resisting because they simply cannot cope with more. Far from early diagnosis adding to the strain, we believe that more investment can save money, reassure parents and ensure that schools and councils understand better the needs of the children who come through the system.

I have been contacted by so many parents, but I want to share what Rachel from Wimborne told me. She said:

“As a preschooler, there is a chance to give my daughter a full education, but the Dorset Child Development Centre is drowning in referrals, with a two-year wait for speech and language referrals.”

Her mum is a teacher, and she said:

“The red tape around autism and other neurodivergent conditions is ridiculous. Why do they have to go to the CDC when their needs are so severe that it is obvious to other educational and health professionals?”

I have sent the Minister details of an exciting pilot scheme at Broadstone middle school, and I look forward to hearing about a meeting soon. Does she agree that SEND children are entitled to the same quality of life and happy childhood as everybody else?

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am more than happy to look personally at the issue that the hon. Gentleman sets out, to ensure that we do more in this area. He will be aware that we have a review under way of level 3 qualifications, but we know that as a country we need to do much more on level 4 and 5 qualifications as well. If he will share further information with me, I will happily look into the matter.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Lytchett Minster school in my constituency is proud of its record in delivering level 3 BTecs; in fact, its sixth form would not survive without BTecs. What assurance can the Secretary of State give me about the continuation of these really important qualifications, which suit less academically able children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We are making good progress on our post-16 qualifications reform review, which will report by the end of the year, so the hon. Lady does not have long to wait to hear the outcomes of that review.

Holidays in School Term Time 

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 658365 relating to holidays during school term time.

It is a pleasure to address you, Sir Edward, in what is an important debate and my first attempt at presenting a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am chuffed to do so, because this subject is really positive. I am sure that everyone in this Chamber has fond childhood memories of family time away from home. When I look back, I have clear memories of spending a lot of time in north Wales with my family. I was fortunate that both my parents were teachers so, as soon as the school holidays came around, we were all available. I thank my parents very thoroughly for that.

Later in life, I followed mam and dad into the family trade by becoming a teacher, where I saw at first hand the impact that absence can have on attainment and progress at school. Often through no fault of the child or the parents, kids were unable to be in school and they fell behind, which made life difficult for them. I am sure all Members in this Chamber would want to avoid a situation in which any kid is unnecessarily held back for any reason, particularly attendance.

This issue is complex, and I have experience of both sides of it, as I am sure many Members have; I am sure that very soon we will hear a similar speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who is also a former teacher.

There is a reason that this petition has received so much support from so many people from right across the breadth of the United Kingdom: who can say anything to a parent who wants to spend more time with their kids? It is so fundamental and so positive, and I think everybody would support that, which is why this petition was started and why it has been so clearly supported.

The debate is about those really positive things, but it boils down to an issue of affordability. Anybody who has looked into this will know of the significant increases in the price of holidays, whether domestic or foreign, whether travelling by air or by train. The price of holidays flies through the roof during school break periods, and that has a real impact on parents. They want to spend time with their kids away from home to build memories but, for far too many people, doing so in the 13 weeks of the school holidays has become unaffordable because of the escalating cost.

I spoke to the petitioners last Thursday, and they made it clear that they completely understand the importance of kids being in school. One of the first things they said to me was that they enjoy the fact that their kids come home from school, tell them what they did that day and are so full of life and the learning of the day. But the petitioners also understand the holistic benefits of kids spending time away from a formalised learning environment for some self-directed time and a change of scenery, even if that is just some different walls.

However, one of the things the petitioner raised is that, unfortunately, a lot of families who want to build those memories are unable to do so during the school holidays because of affordability. They therefore have to take the kids out of school during term time, because they believe it important to enable their kids to enjoy their childhoods. However, parents can be fined for that, which leads to their feeling criminalised and as though they have done something wrong, although I am sure that everybody would agree that taking kids on a break to help them to build childhood memories is really positive.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is not just about the joy of the holiday; the problem is that there is no compassion in the system. I was contacted today by a resident who took their child out of school for two weeks because their grandfather is dying in India, and they have just been fined. They know that their child needs education, and they are passionate about it, but they face the risk that, because the grandfather is dying but has not died, they may get some sort of parenting order if they take their child out again for the funeral—he should go, as part of the extended family. That is ridiculous, so we need to recognise that this is about not just money but compassion.

[Dave Robertson]

It is hard to follow that intervention, because how could anybody disagree with that? Spending time with a dying family member at the end of their life is so important not just for those who pass away but for those who remain, because those memories live with us forever. I am sure those parents were between a rock and a hard place, but made the only decision that any of us would have made, despite the difficulties that they now face. It is clear from stories such as that and others that I have heard over the past few weeks that there is a real problem.

The petition mentions the equalities impact, and says:

“This can be a particular issue for…children that have additional needs”.

Parents raising children with additional needs may already face significant extra costs, whether because they have to buy things for the home, or software and other things to support their kids in school, or because they are simply fighting through a special educational needs and disabilities system that does not work and they face additional costs from having to raise things through tribunals.

In preparing for this debate, I was supported by our excellent Petitions Committee staff to meet members of the National Autistic Society, who said that they valued the opportunity to contribute to it. They said that, because of the issues in the SEND system, they spend a lot of time talking to people about the importance of kids being in school and helping parents to get their kids into school as often as possible. That is sometimes not easy, but a person should face no detriment if they spend some time with their kids, go away or, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) said, take some time for compassionate reasons.

We also met Parentkind, which highlighted some really interesting data from Wales. It recently carried out a consultation about changes to the school year, and a majority of the parents it surveyed support a change so that the long holiday period in the summer is shortened a bit and some of those weeks are moved to other parts of the year. But although 56% of all parents support a more evenly spread school year, 59% of those on a lower income are in favour. That may not seem like a huge difference—it is only 3%—but those parents are contained in the other number, so it is probably closer to 6%, and various other points can be made about the data. The important point is that people from lower income backgrounds—people who are not as rich as their peers—feel more strongly that stretching out and moving around the school holidays would be positive. Part of that may be that it is easier to arrange childcare when they do not need to do six weeks back to back, and part of it may be due to things that are happening in Wales—processes, festivals and things that I am not aware of because it is a while since I have been there. The cost of holidays might be one of the driving factors that led to that slightly different opinion between the two income brackets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

We are committed to removing barriers to opportunity for every child. No child should struggle to access education because of a lack of transport. We are keen to understand how well the transport system is working for children accessing schooling, and I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The majority of teachers have had no more than half a day’s training on autism. If the Government are as committed as they say they are to ensuring that most children with special educational needs and disabilities receive a mainstream education, what will they do to ensure that teacher training meets children’s needs?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The hon. Lady is right to identify that this is an area where we must do more, and do it better. I hear, as she doubtless does, from teachers and support staff that they want additional training and support in this crucial area, and we will ensure that it is part of our SEND reform.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need for the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and all those working to provide the services that children and families rely on, to work together to achieve that statutory obligation. I will take his question away and feed it back to my colleagues in the Health Department.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I would like to raise the issue of children being off-rolled and put into alternative provision. I speak as not only an MP but a parent who this has happened to, and I have a constituency meeting on Saturday where it is the subject. Is the Minister aware that children who are put in alternative provision are entitled only to 15 hours a week of education? There is absolutely no way they can recover and go on to achieve properly on 15 hours a week. I ask the Minister to consider how that fits with the new curriculum plan.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We are looking at the system in the round, which includes ensuring that we have inclusive mainstream education, and making sure that schools are required to work with local authorities on admissions and off-rolling, so that there is the provision within communities that children rely on. Where special schools or alternative provision is required, it is important to ensure there is an opportunity to break down the barriers for young people. Ideally, the vast majority of children can go back into the mainstream system as part of that inclusive provision. I will take away the hon. Member’s specific query. It is an issue we are looking at as part of the wider system.