Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

I will go on to mention the British Medical Association and its latest survey and work on the issue, but my hon. Friend is right to make that point. The patchwork of duties does not amount to a clear or proactive framework for student protection. That needs to be addressed.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, as I do, that whereas there are duties of care on workplaces, prisons, hospitals and colleges, and owed by manufacturers to consumers, no duty of care is owed by universities to students?

[James Naish]

Yes. That comes as a surprise, without doubt, particularly to parents who find themselves in very difficult circumstances when their children are not well, or in some of the more extreme circumstances that we are thinking about today. I agree that the House needs to look at that. Most universities have wellbeing, counselling and mental health support services, which is fantastic, but we have to recognise that provision varies significantly in availability and quality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Llinos Medi]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Better resources and funding for our public services would go a long way to help students who are feeling vulnerable, scared and unable to cope. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, we recognise that students’ independence and autonomy as adults is important, but it is also our role here to make sure that we put safeguards in place to balance their autonomy with the need to safeguard them at vulnerable times.

[Warinder Juss]

I am really sorry to hear the case of the hon. Lady’s constituent. When I first raised this issue in the House last May, I mentioned that over the previous 10 years one student had taken their own life every four days in England and Wales. When Natasha took her life in April 2018, she was at least the 10th student to have committed suicide at that university since October 2016. Does the hon. Lady agree that as parliamentarians we cannot just sit aside and do nothing on this matter?

[Llinos Medi]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I totally agree. That is why I appreciate this debate, where we can all share our experiences and make sure that, in our terms here, we make the change that we want to see.

As has been mentioned, universities try to roll out strategies and action plans, but that has resulted in a patchwork of different support services across the university sector that simply is not working for our young people. It has also led to differing approaches to responsibility and accountability for students’ welfare and wellbeing. The lack of clarity has real consequences and, as we have heard in Mared’s case, it can have an impact on the whole community, including the pharmacy community.

When things go wrong, students and families often discover far too late that there was no obligation to act, even where warning signs were present. I therefore want serious consideration to be given to the concerns of students and their families. I agree with Mared’s parents that the current legal framework is insufficient and that reform is urgently needed to clarify institutional responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. Currently, there is no general duty on universities to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to adult students. With much of the University of Wolverhampton in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, I have been working closely with the university’s director of student life and designated safeguarding lead to address this issue.

Campaigners are not asking for strict liability or for universities to take the form of a parent. They are asking for something fair and simple: where a university becomes aware of a foreseeable risk of serious harm to one of their students, it should take reasonable steps to reduce and prevent that risk. That duty of care is applied in workplaces and colleges, and higher education should be no exception.

After I raised this matter in the House last May, I got a response from the Minister for Skills, Baroness Smith of Malvern, who said that a duty of care may arise in certain circumstances, and that such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the facts and context of the case being considered, and would be dependent on the application by the court of accepted common-law principles. I became an MP to be a legislator. As MPs, we cannot absolve ourselves from our duty as legislators by saying that it is for the courts to clarify uncertainties in the law. It is for us not only to clarify the law, but to make it stronger and sensible.

I was a personal injury and clinical negligence solicitor for more than 30 years before I became an MP, and I find it shocking that the common law does not impose a duty of care on universities to exercise reasonable care and skill for the wellbeing, health and safety of their students when they are teaching them or providing education-related services. That also applies to taking reasonable steps to prevent injury, including psychiatric injury, when such a statutory duty exists in prisons, hospitals, primary and secondary schools, and colleges or further education. Duty of care in negligence also exists in other situations: doctor to patient, solicitor to client, manufacturer to consumer, and one road user to another. There are well-established principles of negligence that state that, where a duty of care exists and that duty is breached, resulting in injury and/or financial loss that was reasonably foreseeable, negligence has occurred.

I will bring the tragic case of Abrahart up again. In Natasha’s case, there was reasonable foreseeability of Natasha’s health suffering and her having a psychiatric disorder, but it was held that the university was not negligent because the university did not owe Natasha a relevant duty of care. In October 2017, university staff became aware that Natasha was struggling and was experiencing anxiety and panic attacks in response to oral assessments. In February 2018, a university employee received an email from Natasha, saying:

“I’ve been having suicidal thoughts and to a certain degree attempted it.”

At that time, Natasha had been diagnosed with chronic social anxiety disorder, but the university continued to mark her down on her assessments. The court confirmed that there were other ways of eliciting information from the student rather than having oral assessments. It concluded that, had there been a duty of care in existence, there would have been a breach of that duty, and the university would consequently have been negligent for its actions.

Natasha’s claim succeeded only under the Equality Act 2010 on the grounds of disability discrimination, because the university failed to make reasonable adjustments based on her disability. However, there are other reasons—to do with legal costs and time limits—why, in order to achieve justice, it should be possible to pursue a claim in negligence where a university has been negligent.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is not adequate for us to have to rely on a determination that someone is suffering from a disability because of mental health issues. In some cases, there will be a history, engagement and a diagnosis of a disorder, but in many others, it could be that the student suddenly feels themselves to be in that situation. There is not always a long pathway to suicide; it could be triggered by a particular event. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that relying on the Equality Act is not adequate in the cases of these students?

[Warinder Juss]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I agree. There will be cases where a student is vulnerable and action needs to be taken, but where that student may not have been diagnosed with a disability. It does not feel fair that in those circumstances the university should not take any steps to deal with the student’s vulnerability.

It cannot be right that there is currently no duty on universities to take reasonable steps to protect the welfare of their students and prevent them from suffering harm when it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to act will result in harm. Establishing such a statutory duty of care would ensure that the law in this country was brought in line with the position in other common-law countries, like the United States and Australia. More importantly, it will give clarity to judges to ensure that justice is achieved and there is access to justice. Universities will also be given clarity about their responsibilities, so that they can take appropriate action to prevent the loss of young lives in their institutions.

A statutory duty of care for universities would define expectations, embed accountability and promote prevention. It would not burden universities unnecessarily, but would align them with the responsibility already expected in other sectors. This is about fairness, clarity and saving lives, and Parliament must act to close this duty gap. Students and their families deserve better, universities need certainty and the courts need clarity. As parliamentarians, let us make that happen.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that very sad story. I reiterate that I know the bravery that it takes for families to share these stories, and the importance of hon. Members repeating them so that we can fully understand this problem. Although my party’s position is not yet fully established on whether we need a statutory duty, we certainly need to do a lot better than we are right now.

As well as being an exciting time, university can be when young people are at their most vulnerable. Universities have several legal duties, including health and safety legislation to ensure that they minimise accidents and injuries on campus. There is the basic maintenance needed to ensure that buildings and public spaces are safe, and in recent years we have seen universities take more seriously the task of offering mental health services to students and making sure that there is help available.

The proportion of students with a mental health condition has increased from less than 1% in 2010 to 5.8% in 2022, and the Office for Students has recorded an average of 160 suicides a year among students between 2016 and 2023, which is an extraordinary statistic. Like other colleagues here today, I have been contacted by constituents whose families have been affected by this awful trauma. One told me about a relative who committed suicide as an undergraduate. Legal proceedings against the university found that it had failed to make the changes needed to support the student in question. As we have heard today, my constituent is not alone, and so many others have not had the help that they needed during a critical time in their life.

These are often complex cases, but universities are obliged to find ways of addressing common problems experienced by students struggling with their mental health. Some students need help to cope with the stress of workloads and exam pressure, moving away from home for the first time, losing touch with friendship circles and family, as well as financial pressures, as we have heard during this debate. In those moments of crisis, universities can and must help.

It is also very much the job of universities to make their campus as safe as possible from criminal behaviour. The Office for Students found that 14% of surveyed students reported being a victim of sexual violence, and one in four students reported being a victim of sexual harassment. While this obviously reflects wider social problems, universities must still put in place sufficient preventive security measures and offer support for victims of these very serious crimes.

[Warinder Juss]

Many hon. Members have mentioned the need for universities to have extra funding to meet this statutory duty of care. Does the hon. Member agree that it is not always an issue of funding, but can be one of mindset? In Natasha Abrahart’s case, the matter could have been dealt, with without the need for extra funding, just by finding another way to elicit that information from Natasha rather than exposing her to oral assessments when the university was aware that she was suffering from chronic social anxiety disorder.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. In these debates, the first response is so often to say that it is a question of money. However, the reality is often that we need proper structures, policies and accountability in place so that institutions perform as they should. As the debate has shown, we also have a much wider culture to address. Some of the culture change we need reflects a wider cultural change in society, but some of it is very specific to universities and the work they do to make sure that they meet their duty of care. I therefore agree with the hon. Member.

Universities have a responsibility to protect their students from discrimination, intimidation and extremism, but that is not what has happened over the last several years. The last Conservative Government passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was introduced to ensure that universities are safe for the free exchange of ideas and intellectually honest debate. That legislation is still not properly or fully enacted. Students wanting to challenge ideas such as radical gender ideology still risk being threatened and punished for their opinions.

At the same time, universities have tolerated protests and encampments that have left Jewish students feeling unwelcome and unsafe. Antisemitic chants such as “From the river to the sea” and “Death to the IDF” have been met with silence from too many universities. The protests that I am talking about have cost £2.6 million in security and clean-up costs across the country since the 7 October attacks. Despite the brazen mass display of antisemitism at those events, only 49 students at 17 universities have been investigated, and even fewer have been punished.

Just last week, the United Arab Emirates placed restrictions on its citizens to limit the number who come to study at British universities, due to concerns that they might be radicalised by the Muslim Brotherhood on our campuses. Islamists are finding more ways to infiltrate British universities and institutions to spread their ideological poison undeterred. Just as we must in all our public institutions, we need to take on and destroy that evil in our universities.

There is no single clear statute in law that sets out a positive duty of care for universities, but parents have a reasonable expectation that universities will protect and support the young people they are entrusted with educating. That is why my party welcomes this debate. I personally welcome the contributions from everybody who has attended, and I thank Members across the House for engaging so constructively as we work to make universities safe for everyone.

Care Leavers

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

I agree. I think it comes back to the fact that the offer is very different in different areas, and that is something we all want to address.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sally Jameson]

I am happy to take an intervention from my hon. Friend—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Morgan.)

[Warinder Juss]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. We know that care-experienced people face distinct discrimination and challenges throughout their lives. As of September, 125 local authorities have passed motions to recognise care experience as a protect characteristic, which is an important step towards tackling inequality. Does my hon. Friend think that this might be an appropriate time for the Government to follow suit and recognise care experience as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010?

[Sally Jameson]

I do agree, and I am proud that my own council in Doncaster is one of those that has recognised care experience as a protected characteristic. The council also has a supported accommodation service, which includes a rent guarantee scheme and council tax reductions, and a care leaver guaranteed interview scheme. I also welcome the in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill the extension of the corporate parenting responsibility to all Government Departments to ensure a wider net of support and awareness when it comes to care leavers and the unique challenges they face.

Earlier this year I attended the all-party parliamentary group for care-experienced children and young people—along with Minister before he was in his current role—where I met Fay, Caelan and Caitlin from Doncaster’s children in care council. The recognising of care experience as a protected characteristic is due in no small part to the campaigning that young people like Fay, Caelan and Caitlin have led. It just goes to show that if these young people are given the opportunity to speak out, they will lead the way and show us what they need in order to thrive. It is pivotal that they are part of pushing the change we desperately need.

While we have seen some major strides forward, we must recognise the journey still ahead. The state has some responsibilities for care-experienced children until they are 25, but for many, when they turn 18, the support and relationships that have been available to them up to that point are hugely reduced.

Educational Assessment System Reform

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. I also thank the charity YoungMinds for its hard work and dedication to supporting young people’s mental health and wellbeing. I had the privilege of meeting its representatives at the Labour party conference, having previously attended its Missing the Mark event here in Parliament.

It has become clear to me, especially since becoming an MP, how frequently mental health issues appear across many different areas of policy, and how poor mental health in childhood can have knock-on effects on a young person’s future life chances. The impact that school assessments have on the future of our children should not be underestimated. I look forward to considering the upcoming schools White Paper to see how we can implement the changes we need to help our children.

In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, I hear time and again from parents and teachers about the need for improved SEND support. Almost 20% of pupils in our schools have identified special educational needs, and reports indicate that special educational needs are most prevalent in pupils as young as nine years old. Some 96% of headteachers have expressed concern that SATs have a negative impact on the wellbeing of their pupils. Is it not therefore time to consider whether we actually need these exams for our children? At secondary school level, 63% of students say that they struggle to cope in the lead-up to GCSEs and A-levels, and that figure rises to nearly 80% for those with special educational needs. Something needs to change.

When we talk about early intervention to protect our children, we need to consider the reform of the educational assessment system that all our young people go through, which could also alleviate pressures on key NHS and SEND services. How many times have we heard the phrase, “Prevention is better than cure”? As parliamentarians, we have real opportunities to deliver change and make tangible differences to the lives of so many. We need to adopt a joined-up approach to supporting our children—one that links a reformed, child-centred educational assessment system with a holistic strategy for supporting the mental health needs of our young people. We can then provide a future from which we will all benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. For everybody in this room and every educationalist across the country, the aim is to get the best from every child at every age, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and whatever path they choose to take going forward, whether it is university or apprenticeships. However, where we are with our education system and our assessment system does not help us get to that point. As we have heard, our exam system is pushing young people to their limits. For some, exams are the right tool and they are excited by them—they are built for the exams and will show the best version of themselves—but for many, exams are not that vehicle.

Last summer, nearly two thirds of students sitting their GCSEs and A-levels said that they struggled to cope, with many reporting panic attacks, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Over a third of 10 and 11-year-olds said SATs made them feel ill, and more than half worried about their abilities for the first time. Those figures tell us something is profoundly wrong. Our assessment system is damaging the very young people it is meant to serve. We have created an environment where success is defined by performance in a few hours of high-stakes exams, rather than by sustained learning or genuine understanding.

Only around 5% of primary school leaders believe that SATs reflect a child’s true ability, and just 3% think that they accurately measure school performance. Exams are meant to measure learning, not resilience under stress. We need a system that uses a fairer mix of assessment methods, combining exams with course work, project work and modular or digital assessments to better reflect the diverse strengths of every student.

[Warinder Juss]

Does the hon. Member agree that exams do not even test resilience? I consider myself to be quite a resilient person, but I used to hate exams. Even though I retook my A-levels and succeeded in getting them, for years afterwards I used to have dreams about not having passed my A-levels, and I do not think that is an uncommon story.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I absolutely agree. After my last exam at university, I promised myself that I would never take another exam. Before I became an MP—not since—I had nightmares where I believed I had an exam in the morning and had not revised, which is a common feeling among many.

This debate follows the House’s passing of Third Reading of the Mental Health Bill yesterday. I spoke about remembering the importance of centring young people’s wellbeing and mental health, and how we must create policy and legislation that fits them and their experiences and needs. A constituent recently told me that both her daughters have needed mental health support, primarily because of issues in school and the stress that came with that. The pressures of our education system are part of that picture, and cannot be ignored.

We have heard arguments about some of the benefits of exams, and we should try to find an adaptable hybrid model so that schools can adapt how they test and assess the ability of individual children rather than forcing them down a single, cookie-cutter, regimented process that does not show their capabilities, intelligence or resilience.

Teaching children about resilience has to come from real-world scenarios, and exams that concentrate stresses into two-hour chunks at the end of an academic year do not reflect the realities of life. We all experience stresses, and we should all try to deal with them, but I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) mentioned, that they help strengthen children’s resilience.

With the independent curriculum and assessment review expected soon, we have a crucial opportunity to rethink how we assess young people. Reform must place wellbeing, creativity and fairness at its heart, because a child’s worth should never be defined by how they perform under pressure, but by the full range of their potential.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s intervention. Change must focus on early support, mainstream inclusion and capacity, which is exactly what the petitioners are calling for today. In the light of that evidence, the legal rights given by EHCPs are not a luxury but a necessary tool for ensuring that children get the support to fulfil their true potential. Without these legal rights intact, many families face months or years of legal challenge or delay just to obtain what should be automatic.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Recently, I held a roundtable for parents and carers, and we had a very moving discussion. One parent spoke about how her son had not been to school since January and had missed out on his GCSEs. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a holistic procedure whereby schools and local authorities work with the NHS; that we should have dedicated special educational needs co-ordinators in schools; and that teacher training should include SEND so that teachers are equipped to deal with these children?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, have hosted roundtable events such as the one that he describes, and I agree that collaboration and greater education across the board is the way forward.

Three guiding principles should underpin the Government’s White Paper and coming reforms. First, early intervention must be real. If mainstream schools had better statutory support earlier, fewer children would need EHCPs. Making SEND support stronger and more reliably available would allow many needs to be met before they escalate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the 123 constituents in my constituency of Wolverhampton West who have signed this petition for support for children with SEND. In Wolverhampton, nearly one in five is currently receiving SEND support or has an education, health and care plan, and that number is continuously increasing. We need the infrastructure and investment in place so that every child has the opportunity that they deserve to thrive in our country. Too many of our children are being let down. They are often waiting months or years to get the support that they need and they are stuck in an over-bureaucratic system.

I welcome the Government’s extra £1 billion of funding. In my city of Wolverhampton, we are receiving £2.7 million of that funding. But the funding needs to go further and the money needs to be used in an efficient way. We need to reform an outdated system for SEND, so that parents and children are the ones kept at the heart of the debate. I often hear teachers say that they would rather have the money given to the school than to private providers, so that they could provide the provision that the children need.

One of the major complaints that I receive is about a total lack of transparency and accountability in the provision of SEND support. It has already been mentioned that we need there to be early intervention. We need to provide support before students reach a crisis point. There should be a legal requirement for each school to have a dedicated SENCO, and SEND education needs to be mandatory as part of teacher training.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member is making an important and passionate speech. Councils across the country are spending upwards of £100 million a year fighting EHCPs and going to tribunal instead of issuing those plans and providing the education that those children need. Does he agree that that money could be better spent on serving the children rather than fighting the parents?

[Warinder Juss]

The hon. Member is absolutely correct. What is more, when parents appeal, they succeed in the vast majority of cases. Why is that decision not made earlier to save the money, which could be used for the children?

We also need to have that funding ringfenced so that the money directly goes to our schools. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ensure that every child receives the support that they deserve. We can see from the many debates that we have had that the strength of feeling is immense. We need to make sure that our children not only get the childhood that they deserve, but also the future that they are entitled to.

Refugee Citizenship Rights

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate.

I speak today as a member of the Citizenship Network, which was launched by Citizens UK last year. It is a cross-party group that brings together parliamentarians, policy experts and those with lived experience of the citizenship and settlement process, with the shared goal of exploring how we can improve our pathway to citizenship to ensure fairness and efficiency.

Last week, I co-hosted an event in Parliament alongside the Citizenship Network, where we were joined by my constituents from Wolverhampton West and community leaders from across the country. It was so inspiring to see those passionate individuals come to this place and speak about how they have benefited from our immigration system.

I was not born in this country; I was born in east Africa and came to Wolverhampton at the age of four. I believe that, by being a citizen of this country, I have been able to contribute to it in the way that I hope others will be able to as well. We heard stories from people who, although entitled to be in this country, are now facing barriers in their journeys to citizenship. The stories they told brought home the human cost of our current system and the urgent need for reform.

The reality is that, instead of helping people to thrive, our current system too often creates unnecessary barriers to opportunity and to a sense of belonging and a dignity, which is so needed by those who are entitled to be in this country. Many people in my constituency of Wolverhampton West have called the UK their home for years. They have worked here, raised their families here, and have contributed to our economy and society. Despite that and their deep ties to this country, they continue to face challenges in securing British citizenship, often spending huge amounts of money and time and then waiting for years just to be able to get citizenship.

Let me be clear: border security is important. Every country has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to protect its borders and ensure the integrity of its immigration system. However, this must not come at the expense of fairness, compassion or humanity. A truly effective system is one that balances security with justice, ensuring that we treat people not just as cases or numbers, but as human beings who bring their own stories about their families and futures. We must move away from a system that is overly complex, prohibitively expensive and riddled with delays and inconsistencies. The current system is not only failing individuals but is failing our country.

I accept that settlement is a privilege and not a right, but we must have an immigration system that offers real protection to those who are fleeing persecution. We must have a clear, achievable and affordable pathway to settlement and citizenship for those who have chosen to make the UK their home, so that they can enrich not only their lives but the lives of others and properly contribute to our country as citizens.

SEND Funding

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Over the past decade we have seen a 140% increase in the number of children identified as requiring an education, health and care plan. Today we have nearly 2 million pupils in England who are identified as having special educational needs. Unfortunately, the rise in demand has not been matched by a corresponding increase in funding. As of October last year, the Department for Education projected a cumulative deficit of £4.6 billion in the dedicated schools grant by the end of 2025-26, alongside a £3.4 billion gap by 2027-28 between high-needs costs and current funding levels. Our children have for too long been let down by previous Governments, and we have had 14 years of Conservative austerity. We must urgently re-examine the structure and long-term sustainability of our SEND provision.

In my constituency, the pressure is all too evident. Nearly 9,000 pupils are currently receiving either special educational needs support or have an EHCP—around 18% of the total pupil population. If we look at the data more closely, a stark pattern emerges. There is a clear correlation between the level of special educational needs and the index of multiple deprivation, which means that children in our most deprived areas are significantly more likely to require additional support than their peers living in more affluent neighbourhoods. This is not just a matter of education but a matter of social justice. We must invest in early years intervention and deliver a holistic programme of support.

Wolverhampton West is home to five state-funded special schools: Tettenhall Wood school, Broadmeadow special school, Penn Fields school, Penn Hall school—close to where I live—and Pine Green Academy. I am proud of all of them, as they have dedicated staff and specialists educating over 650 pupils. However, even with the tireless efforts of our dedicated school staff, our state special schools are under strain and operating beyond capacity.

I am proud that this Government have put forward £740 million for 10,000 new SEND places, and spending review documents reveal that the Government will spend £547 million in 2026-27 and £213 million in 2027-28.

[Graham Stuart]

Perhaps my question could go through the hon. Member to the Minister if he does not know the answer. The £740 million is very welcome, but as he says it is frontloaded in one year and then halves the following year, with no indication of where it is going thereafter. Although it may be a welcome short-term intervention, how is it part of a sustainable effort to improve SEN?

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss]

My point is that we have not had sufficient funding to provide our special educational needs children with the support they require. The National Audit Office has warned that without significant change, the current system is financially unsustainable.

The evidence is damning. Since 2019, we have seen no consistent improvement in outcomes for children with SEND. We must, therefore, take bold, decisive steps to reform our SEND system to ensure that every child, irrespective of their needs or background, receives the proper support they rightly deserve. Only then can we say that we have removed the barriers to opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

As many right hon. and hon. Members have outlined, there is no doubt that there is a crisis in our SEND system in this country—a crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. However, funding is still too low to keep pace with the rate at which children are being diagnosed with SEND, and many families and teachers are struggling to get the help that children desperately need and deserve. Unfortunately, families in my constituency of South Dorset experience the same. According to figures set out earlier this year, 18% of pupils in South Dorset receive SEND support, roughly 5% more than the national average. That is why I want to increase the number of SEND places in special school settings.

We have three state-funded special schools locally, Harbour school, Westfield college and Wyvern academy, whose staff do a truly brilliant job delivering specialised and individualised support for every child. However, following conversations with mums and dads at the school gate and teachers in the classroom, I am all too aware that, put simply, there are more SEND pupils across South Dorset, primarily based in mainstream schools, than there are special SEND places in special school settings.

[Warinder Juss]

In 2023, the Department for Education said that demand for special school places nationally outstripped available places by at least 4,000, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need more special school places?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and we really feel that in South Dorset. There are simply not the places needed to support every child with SEND. We urgently need the Government to move further, faster, to ensure that every child with SEND gets the education, and the school setting, that they deserve. I once again ask Ministers at the Department for Education to get the SEND school at the Osprey Quay site on Portland open—we waited for years for that to happen under the previous Government—and to finally rebuild the buildings at Dorset Studio school. If we can get those two projects over the line, we can really start to deal with the crisis in South Dorset.

Funding for a new SEND school was promised for so many years; that is what is most frustrating for parents in my constituency, particularly those living on Portland. In 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, they were promised a solution that did not come, and once again we are waiting. Parents on Portland need that school on the Osprey Quay site opened as soon as possible.

Every child, no matter their educational needs, should have the opportunity to do their best, but they can do that only in the right school, with the right support. I know that this Labour Government recognise that reality, which is why I look forward to hearing from the Department for Education on the future of those two schools in my constituency, and to hearing a little more from the Minister at the end of this debate.

Gender Self-identification

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said, there is still a legal requirement not to lie, with powers to punish people who lie when applying for a gender recognition certificate.

Across these islands, very few medical practitioners are competent, trained and working in this area. If we freed up some of their clinical time, the people who need gender-affirming surgery and treatment would get it far more quickly. The queue would shorten because those seeking a gender recognition certificate would not need a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

The Government could also choose to put other rules in place, and there are already other rules for getting a gender recognition certificate. The petition focuses on the gender dysphoria diagnosis, but it does not focus on the fact that people have to provide two years’ worth of evidence. The Government could still require that people provide evidence for every three-month period in at least the previous two years showing them using the title of Mr, Mrs or Ms, showing them using their new name, and proving that they have been living in that gender. The Government could still require all that while taking out the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, which would make things so much better for people.

As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds and a number of other hon. Members have said, what has happened around the Supreme Court ruling has made things even more complicated and confusing for people—it has not provided clarity. We are now in a weird limbo situation where huge numbers of pubs, restaurants and shops, which are just trying to do their best, do not know what they have to do. They have the interim guidance, which is frankly not very clear, the Court ruling and the Equality Act to look at, but they do not know what toilets they should be providing.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I have heard the argument that the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of “sex” within the confines of the Equality Act 2010—I have inquired further into this as a member of the Justice Committee—and it is now for the Government to legislate further to protect trans people.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading is that the Supreme Court tried to work out what was in the minds of the politicians who passed the Equality Act in 2010. That is a difficult thing to do, because I cannot say what is in my mind right now, never mind 15 years ago. The Supreme Court tried to interpret that, and it came down on the side of saying that the politicians were talking about biological sex when it comes to single-sex spaces, for example. Actually, the Equality Act mainly focuses on things like discrimination rather than single-sex spaces, which are a tangential side mention in the Act.

My understanding is that someone can now only be discriminated against on the basis of biological sex or on the basis of their transgender identity, so not their transgender gender but their identity as a transgender person. That removes a huge amount of protection for transgender people. I am massively concerned, and I think the only way we will get clarity is if the Government step up and make a change to the Equality Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I begin by expressing my full support for the trans community and their right to live openly and authentically. Every individual in our country must be allowed the freedom to live their truth free from discrimination and fear, and to be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

I am especially proud that City of Wolverhampton council, which is based in my Wolverhampton West constituency, made history back in 2016 by electing the first transgender councillor to office. That moment was not only a milestone for our city, but a powerful symbol of what can be achieved when inclusion and equality are not just discussed but put into practice. I am sure that my city of Wolverhampton will continue to lead the way in promoting acceptance and equal rights for all.

In an intervention earlier, I mentioned the UK Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers. As a member of the Justice Committee, I have had the opportunity to inquire further into that decision. The decision confirmed that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, “sex” refers to biological sex, and that trans women, even with a gender recognition certificate, are not considered to be women under the Act’s provisions on sex-based protections and rights. The ruling does not strip trans people of their right to be protected from discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair treatment.

The decision has created a legal distinction between biological sex and legal gender, and that has obviously created a lot of confusion and uncertainty in areas such as access to single-sex spaces. The Government must find a way to uphold the rights of women and trans people without pitting them against each other, as has happened in the past. It is crucial that the Government recognise that transitioning is not a choice, and that the transitioning process often comes with a deep and difficult journey of self-understanding and acceptance, with the associated stress and emotional strain of coming to terms with one’s new gender identity.

The law is not static, and it never should be. It evolves with society, and society itself evolves through empathy and understanding others. I am pleased that the Government have committed to a wider range of support for the trans community, including a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and a review of adult gender identity services. However, we have a duty to ensure, through further legislation, that trans people are given proper legal recognition of their gender, and that we demonstrate respect and compassion toward all our communities. This is not about special treatment: it is about equal treatment and sending a message to everyone in our country that they have the right to live freely and proudly as who they are, and not as we think they are. Consequently, we need to reassure transgender people in our communities that they have the right and the ability to live as their authentic self, free from fear and discrimination.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

Last year, under the previous Government, we saw the steepest year-on-year drop in the number of children and young people enjoying reading. The hon. Member should look at the record of his Government before pointing the finger. Phones should not be out in schools; it is a simple as that. Heads have the power to impose rules that suit their school community. Just a year ago, his Government claimed that they were “prohibiting” mobile phones in schools, and that their guidance meant a “consistent approach” across schools. Those were their words. The then Secretary of State said:

“We are giving our hard-working teachers the tools to take action”.

Was that Secretary of State right back then, when they backed the Tory Government’s measures, or is the hon. Member?

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the plan for change mission entitled “Break Down Barriers to Opportunity”.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the plan for change mission entitled “Break Down Barriers to Opportunity”.

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

This Labour Government are determined to break the link between background and success, so that where someone is from does not determine where they end up in life. That work starts with the early years, which is when we can make the biggest difference to children’s life chances. Through our plan for change, we will get tens of thousands more children—a record share—starting school ready to learn, because children growing up in our country deserve the best start in life, and nothing less.

[Warinder Juss]

What specific steps are being taken to ensure that the plan for change will help those in my constituency of Wolverhampton West who have historically faced systemic barriers to opportunity, such as those with special educational needs, those from ethnic minority backgrounds, and those from a background of lower socioeconomic status?

[Bridget Phillipson]

In Wolverhampton West and across our country, this Labour Government are determined to ensure that background is no barrier to getting on in modern Britain. That is why we will reform the special educational needs and disabilities system to ensure that all our children get the support that they need to thrive. Alongside that, we have delivered the biggest ever uplift in the early years pupil premium. We are rolling out breakfast clubs in our primary schools and will be launching the first phase of primary-based nurseries, ensuring that all our children have access to fantastic early years education.

School Accountability and Intervention

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We wish to see a change in the drive towards an inclusive mainstream as part of this new Ofsted accountability system, and the changes in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills will obviously support those endeavours. The curriculum and assessment review will also look at how barriers to inclusion can be removed in the curriculum and assessment system, and at how we can get high standards and expectations of great progress for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s earlier comments about the tragic events in Sheffield, where another young life has sadly been lost to knife crime.

Does the Minister agree that these landmark reforms will not only drive high and rising standards, but help in the recruitment and retention of teachers? Will she also confirm that we will engage fully with parents and teachers on the development of plans for school report cards?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for children. We absolutely need to drive recruitment, but our greatest tool for recruitment is retention—we need to hold on to the fantastic teachers who are in our schools. A more holistic and broader picture of schools will shine a light on the great practice going on, the hard work and the context in which schools operate, and will deliver on the desire, which I know every teacher has, to deliver high and rising standards for the children in their care.

Primary School Breakfast Clubs

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right both to highlight Northern Ireland and to make the wider point. He is a regular feature of Adjournment debates, and I feel honoured that he has intervened on me.

The Minister and the Government need only see the number of Members in the Chamber at half-past 9, here to speak on behalf of their constituents and underline the importance of universal breakfast clubs. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that families whose children use breakfast clubs five days a week during term time save a staggering £760, which is a significant saving for working parents. With the roll-out of funded breakfast clubs, imagine the money that could remain in the pockets of working families in Slough and beyond.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in a constituency such as Wolverhampton West the provision of breakfast clubs for primary school children targets a number of issues? First, it gives children a nutritious meal so that they do not go to school hungry. Secondly, it allows them to socialise with other children before the school day starts. And thirdly, it enables parents to go to work knowing that their children are well provided for in a safe environment.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend raises exactly the points I will come to later in my speech—he has spoken very correctly. There are not just financial or moral incentives for free breakfast clubs. In Wales, where universal free breakfast clubs have been rolled out, we have seen the scheme’s educational benefits. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that attendance at breakfast clubs resulted in improved healthy eating, a reduction in children skipping breakfast and raised attainment for pupils from the age of seven.