Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olivia Bailey
Absolutely—I thank the brilliant team at Mousehold, who are so dedicated to giving every child the help and support they need. This Government want every child to have the best start in life, which is why we have expanded childcare entitlements, are supporting schools to open new nurseries, and—after the Conservative party dismantled them—are bringing back family hubs in every community in our country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent Seb told me how pleased he was when the Government extended the role of free childcare, but his nursery changed the rules so that the free hours can be taken only after 1 o’clock and have to be spread over four days a week. That means that the previously paid-for care is not now free, but costing £500 more than before. We know that this is happening across the country as nurseries struggle with the jobs tax and other excessive costs, so what are the Government going to do to help those families get what they are entitled to?
Olivia Bailey
I encourage the hon. Lady to write to me with the details of that case, because we are absolutely clear that in this rapid expansion of childcare—which half a million children have been able to access this September—those 30 hours should be available, and it should not be the case that extras are charged or anything else. I am happy to look at the specifics of the case.
Educational Assessment System Reform
Vikki Slade Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing the debate.
The current assessment system is failing our children, our teachers and our society. A combination of factors is at play: the focus of school inspections and parental choice on arbitrary pass rates; the narrowing of the curriculum, which devalues creative and vocational subjects; the failure to maintain school funding, which leaves headteachers little choice but to run schools on a shoestring; the explosion in poor mental health and additional educational needs; the long-term impact of the pandemic on children and learning; and the move to digital, which is increasing the pace of life and risks leaving so many children behind.
I should be clear that assessments of progress are important. There is value in benchmarking our children against age-related expectations, using their progress to assess the quality of teaching and helping parents to find the right schools for their children. For most children, it is also reasonable to feel some level of stress. That is a natural part of life, and understanding how we respond to it helps us with our own coping mechanisms and helps us to deal with bigger stressful life events as we grow up. However, it is fairly obvious that some children are not going to meet the so-called normal expectations.
Let me tell the story of a very special child. To protect their identity, I am calling them Taylor. They could not do their alphabet when they started school; they failed their phonics, their key stage 1 test and their key stage 2 SATs. They were finally placed on the SEN register at around 11, but they were not supported. They were assessed as having a reading age of seven years and nine months at age 14, yet the school forced them to continue with a full eight GCSE programme. The school forced them to progress in English and maths knowing they were destined to fail. The mental health impact of failing everything throughout their whole childhood was so devastating, on top of covid and the other pressures on their young life, that they ended up out of school and out of hope. They ended year 11 with no qualifications and no school.
Their story is far from unique—500 children a day are referred to mental health services for anxiety and four in five education leaders say that reformed GCSEs have created greater levels of stress and anxiety. Just under half the children who fail to make the grade at 16 were judged as falling behind at the age of just five. Those children, when identified early, can be stopped from failing throughout their life. They are not stupid; they learn differently, and they need a more inclusive school, a better curriculum and a system that is based not on remembering stuff, but on applying their skills and talents to help them to meet their potential.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I recognise that my constituency has a bad name in this area, because it was largely my predecessor MP who introduced the kind of memorising curriculum that my hon. Friend refers to. Does my hon. Friend agree that to preserve the mental health of our young people, and to maximise their human capacity, there is no point in just testing their ability to remember and regurgitate after two years? Instead, we should engage their creativity and critical thinking skills, and go back to some element of continuous assessment.
Vikki Slade
I absolutely agree. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and allowing me to pause in my emotion. My constituent Kaisey did not pass her English and maths GCSEs. She got close, but she was forced to resit them at college where she went backwards. Now she is being blocked from progressing on her chosen course in animation, and her mum is being told that her daughter cannot access functional English and maths until she is 19, despite her passing the level 2 creative courses that would allow her to progress. A special school would allow her to take those functional courses. Her mum said:
“The resit crisis is leaving students feeling failures and is demoralising, especially to SEN students who may never be able to achieve a Grade 4”.
There is no reason why these children should be forced into a cycle of doom.
To go back to Taylor and what happened to him, he has now been scooped up by the brilliant special Linwood school, where the staff have rebuilt his self-esteem. He flew through his functional English, he is now on to maths, he has passed a home cooking BTEC, and he aspires to be a teaching assistant in a school for autistic children. I want to challenge the Minister on removing the forced retakes of English and maths GCSEs, having a more holistic range of courses and, as some of us just heard in the Dingley’s Promise roundtable, having reasonable adjustments in classrooms to help every child to learn and achieve better outcomes, and to improve their happiness.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks. By almost any metric, the English education system is one of the best performing in the world. In the latest programme for international student assessment results, English pupils have continued to score significantly above the OECD average for mathematics, reading and science. England’s average PISA scores were significantly higher than those of SNP-run Scotland and Labour-run Wales. Assessments and exams have led to that. That is what is at stake here—that is what we are discussing, and we should be clear about that.
That success is owed to the foundations of a knowledge-rich curriculum and rigorous and thorough assessment across all stages of a student’s educational build-up. That success story means that the suggestions from Government Members of reforming the educational assessment system—or, alarmingly, scrapping it—need close scrutiny. When launching their review of the curriculum and assessment system in England last year, the Government made it clear that they were taking aim at the examination and assessment system.
Vikki Slade
I am just wondering whether the hon. Member was listening to all the speeches about the massive increase in mental health issues for young people. Does he acknowledge the link between that increase and the tightened restrictions and curriculum that he seems to be promoting?
Saqib Bhatti
I can assure the hon. Lady that I listened to every speech. As I make progress, I hope to answer her question; if I do not, I will happily take another intervention from her.
The examination and assessment system has ensured that children are learning the basic skills and knowledge needed to succeed in life, that children are improving their understanding in a knowledge-rich curriculum, and that England’s position as an educational world leader in international league tables is secured. The wealth of evidence showing the benefits of exams as a means of assessment is clear, even in the very review of the curriculum and assessment system that the Government commissioned. The interim report, published earlier this year, highlighted that national assessment and qualifications are “working well”, and that examinations such as GCSEs play an important role in driving high standards and ensuring fairness,
“reducing the risk that assessment of students’ performance is influenced by their gender, ethnicity or background.”
Even more encouragingly, polling conducted for the interim report made it clear that students themselves value the role of exams as an
“opportunity to demonstrate everything they have learned in their studies”.
That students themselves recognise the value of exams shows that they understand what this Government seemingly struggle to: that exams offer students of all backgrounds the very best chance to succeed. Our educational system is designed to be a tool of social mobility and to allow the most disadvantaged children to demonstrate their potential—something that replacing exams with coursework would fundamentally undermine. In an instant, every advantage that some children have, such as access to a laptop at home, a tutor or a subscription to an artificial intelligence service, and some children from other backgrounds do not would be baked into our assessment of educational attainment. Students would no longer be rewarded for hard graft in the classroom, which they demonstrate in answering an exam question, but rather for the perks that can access outside school and pass off as their own work.
Children with SEND: Assessments and Support
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The SEND crisis is destroying the life chances of children—not only those with additional needs, but their classmates, whose education also suffers as teachers struggle to cope with an unmanageable range of needs. Families are failed and unable to work or enjoy family time as negotiating SEND consumes all their energies. Teachers are leaving the profession in record numbers, and nearly half cite SEND-related stress as a key reason.
Local councils are overwhelmed. One caseworker I spoke to had 200 families on her books, each requiring annual reviews, school searches and funding decisions. The backlog in NHS diagnosis is forcing families to go private and get into debt, and transport providers and some SEND schools are profiting from desperate families and desperate councils. But most tragically, the system is stealing our children’s childhoods. Every child has a right to an education that nurtures their personality, talents and abilities. The current system fails everyone.
Like the lead petitioner, Rachel Filmer, whom I met on Friday, I fear that if we do not raise our voices now, we risk eroding children’s rights. Children must be at the heart of reform. Some children will always need a specialist school, but every school should be special, because every one of our children deserves an education.
Early Education and Childcare
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, these issues are devolved, but I look forward to hearing her thoughts and views on them. I encourage her to write to me, and I can certainly raise her points with the relevant teams across the Department and across Government.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I know that Ministers are probably sick of hearing about national insurance increases and my repeated calls for business rates exemptions, as they have in Scotland. However, the strain of costs is leading to practices that are affecting families—for example, a nursery chain in my constituency that has numerous branches only allows families to take their funded hours in the afternoons, forcing them to pay for the mornings that they actually need. Those families are now worse off than when they had fewer hours. What is the Minister going to do to help such families?
Stephen Morgan
I have mentioned the investment that we are putting into early education—£8 billion this year and £9 billion next year. We have announced the largest ever increase in the early years pupil premium, and case studies from across the country are demonstrating the difference that this programme is making. However, as I mentioned, we want to make the process simpler for parents and learn lessons from the past, and we will set that out in due course as part of our wider reform agenda.
Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
I too recently met the chief executive of the Early Years Alliance, and I will always be open to discussing the challenges faced by the sector; but let me convey to the right hon. Gentleman the points that I made to the chief executive. We are investing £8 billion in early years education, as well as almost doubling the early years pupil premium and providing a £75 million expansion grant to support settings ahead of a further roll-out in September. The right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party made a load of promises to parents at the time of the last general election, but they did not fund them, they did not ensure that the workforce would be there, and they left us with the black hole in the public finances that this Government are turning around.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
In the last couple of months, I have been speaking to lots of nursery providers across my constituency about these issues, and the thing that comes up again and again is small business rate relief. The Secretary of State’s Department has already replied saying that nurseries can claim the relief, but a nursery has to have fewer than 18 children to qualify, and the average number in my constituency is 75. Those nurseries are not eligible, and the national insurance and consumables changes are crippling them, so they are now considering not taking on Government-funded children. What should they do?
Bridget Phillipson
I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), has been in touch with the hon. Lady recently to discuss this matter further, and I personally will happily look further into the case that she has raised. We are investing record sums in early years education and working with the sector to deliver the places that are needed. That is a big challenge, because the last Tory Government did not leave behind a plan to deliver those places.
Gender Self-identification
Vikki Slade Excerpts(5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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?