Helen Hayes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents have been profoundly failed by Thames Water for many years, with frequent leaks and bursts, inadequate investment in our infrastructure, clogged up roads and, to add insult to injury, skyrocketing bills. Thames Water is a failing organisation. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not accept a proposal to exempt Thames Water from fines for four years? It should be held to the same standards of accountability as the rest of the industry and if it fails, the Government should step in to place it in special administration, with a view to bringing it back under public control.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome many of the measures in the Gracious Speech, including legislation to strengthen our relationship with the European Union. Brexit has been the unmitigated disaster that the evidence always suggested it would be, and it is the Government’s responsibility both to act in the national interest by seeking to build closer alliances with the EU, and to continue to work to build a national consensus that it is in the UK’s economic, security and cultural interests to do so. We are focused on economic growth in this debate, and economic growth depends on a strong and sustainable education system at every level. The Education Committee’s recent report on higher education funding makes it clear that universities—anchor institutions in local and regional economies—face unprecedented financial pressure, with a real risk of insolvency and no clear plan for managing it. If we are serious about economic growth, we must be serious about the financial sustainability of the institutions that underpin it. In addition to taking the measures in the Gracious Speech, I urge the Government to take with the utmost seriousness my Committee’s recommendations on the steps needed to stabilise our university sector. I will focus the remainder of my remarks on the proposed “education for all” Bill. This legislation sits at the centre of the Government’s support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Too many families still have to fight to secure the right help for their children. Too many children wait months, sometimes years, for essential support. Too many teachers and school leaders are being asked to meet growing and complex needs in a system stretched beyond capacity. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that that cannot continue, and the aim of making generational reform that will raise standards and build a more inclusive education system. The emphasis on early intervention, support close to home and collaboration across education, health and care reflects many of the recommendations made by my Committee. The move towards earlier identification of need is right and necessary. National inclusion standards could help to address the deeply entrenched postcode lottery that families face, and provide a baseline for accountability. Investment in workforce training and multidisciplinary support through initiatives such as Experts at Hand shows understanding that inclusion relies on professional expertise, as well as good intentions. However, there are legitimate concerns about capacity in the SEND system and the resources needed to deliver effective and impactful reforms. Parents and carers have expressed significant anxiety about some of the proposals in the Government’s draft reforms, which could both reduce access to existing backstop accountabilities and risk exacerbating friction between parents and carers and schools. If the “education for all” Bill is to succeed, it must be matched by the resources and workforce planning needed to turn its vision into reality, and it must be based on the lived experience of children and families and the professionals who work with them. Any reform of education, health and care plans must strengthen, not weaken, the ability of families to secure the support that their children need, and to hold the system to account when it fails. Everyone wants a system that works better and delivers more effectively for children, but no system is perfect, or can be perfect. Parents need to know that, should things go wrong, the system can be held to account through robust and independent mechanisms, underpinned by legislation. For that reason, I strongly encourage the Government to provide space for continued and meaningful engagement at each stage of reform, and to consider publishing the Bill in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Education Committee. That would allow for the testing of ideas, the identification of unintended consequences, and improvements that would give the Bill the best possible start. We have a rare opportunity to make lasting change, and to build a system that delivers on the principle of inclusion in practice, provides timely and appropriate support for every child who needs it, empowers professionals and supports local services, rather than overwhelming them. With careful design, proper resourcing and true partnership with those on the frontline, the “education for all” Bill could mark a turning point for a system that is too often characterised by struggle and exhaustion, turning it into one defined by trust, consistency and opportunity. That is a goal that we all should share, and it is by working together that we can achieve it.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for it. The support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is an area in which my Committee has taken an intense interest. It is the single biggest challenge in our education system, with far-reaching consequences. The current system is failing children, families and the professionals who work with them, right across our country. It is causing deep distress, sometimes even trauma, for children and their families. The implications of the failing system for local authority finances are profound, and many professionals are put in the invidious position of being unable to deliver the education and support that children and young people require because of impossible constraints on resources and ever-increasing need. The outcomes for children with SEND are unacceptably poor. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the description given by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that this is a system that is broadly working. A system that relies on parents having to battle every step of the way and having to go to tribunals to seek redress is an exclusionary and inequitable system. We need to be absolutely clear that it is failing and that the reform that is necessary to get it to work is comprehensive and far-reaching. It is vital that the failures in the current system are addressed. It is vital on its own terms, because no child should feel that there is no place for them in our education system, that their needs are not understood or, even worse, as we have heard from some of our witnesses, that they are the problem. No parent should have to battle at every single stage of their child’s education to get the support they need. It is also vital if we want to improve outcomes in our education system, and if we want to unleash the talent and creativity of every single young person, for the benefit of our society and our economy.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The right of tenants and residents in social housing to manage their own estate is an important one. Many tenant management organisations deliver excellent services for their residents. However, that is not the case for residents of the Loughborough estate in my constituency, who have been badly failed by the Loughborough estate management board for many years, with poor repairs and maintenance services and truly shocking conditions on the estate. The mechanisms to resolve those issues are within the control of the very organisation that is failing residents. The renewal ballot for the LEMB is now more than a year overdue, and a recent annual general meeting was held outside the rules, with many residents denied entry. Can we have a debate in Government time on resident and tenant management organisations, and changes in the law that may be needed to ensure that, when things go as badly wrong as they have on the Loughborough estate, steps can be taken quickly to intervene?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Public Baths and Lidos · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this fantastic debate about lidos. I am proud that my constituency is home to Brockwell lido in the magnificent setting of Brockwell Park. Brockwell lido is an unheated outdoor swimming pool that opened in 1937, and it is grade II listed. It is a very special place. Crowned Britain’s best outdoor pool by the AA in 2025, it is known locally as Brixton beach. It is a place where generations of children have learned to swim and enjoyed the freedom of a summer by the pool. It is where many local residents enjoy the ritual of year-round swimming and a range of activities, including gym, fitness, yoga, and a truly wonderful programme of inclusive children’s activities run by the brilliant Whippersnappers. Brockwell lido is firmly at the heart of our community, and it has a special place in my life too. I have swum there regularly since 1996. In 2024, after many years of trying to summon the courage, I—pardon the pun—dipped my toe in the water of cold-water swimming, continuing my weekly swim into the autumn months. I very much enjoyed the experience until the Sunday before Christmas, when the water temperature was a balmy 8°. I fainted in the changing room afterwards. I am grateful to the kind women who found me and helped me to recover my pride and dignity, as much as my consciousness; I am now not quite a year-round swimmer at Brockwell lido. Throughout Brockwell lido’s history, however, it has faced precarious times. It was closed for a period in 1990 and opened again after a vigorous campaign by the Brockwell Lido Users group. I pay tribute to BLU, which played such an active role in advocating for lido users and for the protection and maintenance of Brockwell lido. In 2003, when the lido needed major investment to be able to continue, BLU was involved in the choosing of a new operator, Fusion Lifestyle, which secured the investment needed at the time and ran the lido well for the first few years through good collaboration with BLU, Whippersnappers and Lambeth council. In recent years, however, following a change in the leadership of Fusion Lifestyle and some of the challenges faced by the leisure industry as a result of the pandemic, there has been increasing concern about the quality of the facilities and the lack of investment and maintenance at Brockwell lido. Right now, Brockwell lido is facing a new risk, as it is understood that Fusion Lifestyle faces grave financial difficulties and may no longer be in a position to continue to operate the lido. On Sunday, I attended a meeting of more than 200 local residents, who came together with Lambeth councillors and members of the BLU committee to talk about the future of Brockwell lido. Were any confirmation needed as to how loved and valued Brockwell lido is by local residents in our community, that meeting was it. I am pleased that Lambeth council agreed to step in if needed to ensure that Brockwell lido stays open, but the anxiety in recent weeks poses a number of questions about protections for our lidos, and whether sufficient protection is afforded to them given their great value to our communities. We know, for example, that Brockwell lido is a profitable site, but there has been little transparency about, and no ringfencing of, the funding that the lido brings in, such that it is spent on the maintenance and investment that is needed for the lido. The process is under way for designating Brockwell lido an asset of community value, but I wonder whether such a designation should be automatic for facilities that are always going to be assets of community value. There is no guaranteed role for users of our lidos in their governance, despite the fact that the users are so often the custodians of such valuable and important places. Finally, in the event of insolvency or administration, there is no obligation on an operator to co-operate with, or to hand the facility back to, the council so that it can continue to operate for the public benefit. We love Brockwell lido and, as a community, we will work to ensure that it has a sustainable, viable and long-term future, but without doubt, having had this experience, we are learning about possible additional protections. I hope that the Minister will have some response to such concerns.

• 5 Mar 2026 · World Book Day · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered World Book Day. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate. I am tempted to dedicate this debate to every parent or carer whose child has ever announced that they wanted to go to school for World Book Day as the Very Hungry Caterpillar, Flat Stanley or the tiger who came to tea; who has looked optimistically at their floor mop late at night, wondering whether it would pass as a Harry Potter broomstick; or who celebrated quietly when their child’s costume of choice was a more modest “Where’s Wally?” or Mr Bump. It is important to be clear at the outset, however, that while dressing up for World Book Day is a source of great joy and excitement—sometimes accompanied by a degree of last-minute panic—for children and parents across the country, and for the commuters who get to appreciate the wonder and creativity of the costumes during the morning school run, that is not the core purpose of World Book Day. It is also important that any dressing up to mark World Book Day is done in an inclusive way, so that no child misses out on the opportunity to dress up because of a lack of resources or parental time.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Student Loan System · Hansard source

  More

  Concerns raised in recent weeks about plan 2 student loans, including unilateral and unexpected change in the repayment terms and repayments based on the consumer prices index, are about the promise of higher education: whether working hard for an undergraduate degree really does result in a good quality of life when graduates face 30 years of student loan repayments on these terms. In the light of these escalating concerns, can the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Treasury on this issue, and when we can expect to see the work that he promises to make plan 2 loans fairer for students?

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear that Brexit has caused a 4% long-term reduction in GDP and has created a structural challenge in UK manufacturing. The export of UK goods to the EU has fallen by 27% and imports have fallen by 32%.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the point about the recovery grant very well. I will come on to some practical suggestions for what the Government could do to alleviate that situation in the short term. Council tax equalisation, such that the grant is now based on each area’s share of the national tax base and not actual local tax levels, penalises low tax base, high-needs areas like Lambeth and Southwark. The business rates reset will wipe out historical strong growth in some inner-London boroughs, and falling numbers of children will also have an impact through the children’s formula, even though need is growing and increasingly complex. The risk is that our councils are left in an increasingly precarious situation and are forced to make impossibly hard choices about local services in the face of increasing need. Having agreed the final funding settlement—it is welcome that it is for three years, which gives our councils more certainty—there is more for the Government to do to help councils bring down their costs and reduce need, so that service delivery is manageable within the resources that are available. On behalf of my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, I have a number of asks of the Minister. Our councils desperately need help with the costs of temporary accommodation. The average cost of temporary accommodation in London has risen by 75% over the last five years, and the number of people seeking help with their housing has also increased dramatically, yet the amount that the Government pay councils to subsidise temporary accommodation has been frozen since 2011. Will the Government work towards increasing the subsidy so that it is closer to the actual housing costs that our councils face? Temporary accommodation is the least stable form of housing and it has terrible consequences for residents. I have known many constituents to get up at 5 am to travel long distances by bus to keep their children in the same school and give them some stability. Those costs could be saved if more residents could afford to rent privately, yet the freezing of the local housing allowance has made that increasingly impossible. Will the Minister work with her counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to increase the rate of local housing allowance to stop private renters from needing temporary accommodation? Some of the £5 million that is spent every day by London local authorities on temporary accommodation would be much better deployed keeping residents in stable homes through the local housing allowance than propping up the most awful situations in temporary accommodation. With the application of the £35 million cap, councils in receipt of the recovery grant currently face a cliff edge. For Lambeth council that will mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, a loss of £47.5 million over the next three years. If the cap was removed for just next year, it would give the council an additional £11 million to reduce the savings that it is currently having to plan for. Will the Minister consider that? Councils have expressed concern to me about the Government’s assumptions about the level of council tax receipts. Will the Minister work with councils to ensure that the assumed level of council tax receipts closely matches actual council tax collections? The social housing crisis requires that new social homes are delivered at pace. In my constituency, we have council and housing association-owned sites with planning permission that are not currently being delivered because the soaring inflation caused by the Liz Truss mini-budget priced them out of viability. The Government’s commitment to invest £39 billion in social housing is very welcome, but will the Minister ensure some of that funding is urgently made available to London boroughs that have sites that are ready to build? We urgently need that. The overnight accommodation levy is very good news for London but it must be apportioned to where it is most needed. Will the Government mandate that at least 50% of the funds raised by the levy are retained locally by London boroughs to cover the costs incurred by services affected by tourism and to support local growth?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come on to talk about those sites in my constituency that have planning permission but currently are not funded to build the social homes that could be on those sites. I think that is an important part of how we solve these challenges. The Conservatives’ interventions to reduce social housing rents have also been disastrous for the ability of our councils to fund the maintenance of social housing and to fund new social homes. Southwark council calculated that Conservative-imposed rent cuts and freezes will cost the council’s housing revenue account £1 billion over 30 years. What is a very small saving for tenants has had a really big impact on the ability of councils to keep up with the maintenance needs of their social housing stock. The Conservatives were happy to cut our councils’ budgets to the core and did not worry about the erosion of services that inevitably followed. Reform imagined that our councils were full of waste and profligacy, only to find that they are lean organisations that have constantly innovated in the face of austerity but that, over time, have become stretched, sometimes to breaking point. A budget settlement based on a definition of deprivation that did not include housing costs, as was originally proposed, would have had absolutely dire consequences for inner-London councils. The reality is this: if rent eats up so much of someone’s income every month that they cannot afford the bare essentials, or if the only property they can afford to rent is so bad that it causes them and their family to become ill, then they are deprived and they face exactly the same consequences of that deprivation as anyone else anywhere in the country who simply does not have enough money to get by.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I agree completely. The levy is a really important source of additional revenue into London, and it is so important that it is spent where it is needed. That does mean allowing councils to retain some of the receipts—I would say 50%, as London Councils is calling for—in order for them to do exactly that. Exceptional financial support was designed to be a temporary intervention to support councils with acute financial pressures, but the consequence has been a growing number of councils running structural deficits. Will the Minister set out in greater detail how the Government intend to support councils to exit EFS so they are not held back by growing deficits? Finally, the announcement yesterday on SEND deficits is very welcome. It is a clear recognition that the current costs of SEND provision are totally unsustainable. Writing off 90% of SEND deficits will only help if the forthcoming SEND reforms are properly funded and designed such that they are financially sustainable. What is the Minister doing with the Department for Education and the Treasury to make sure that councils’ statutory SEND responsibilities are properly funded when the schools White Paper is published? Our councils and councillors are a crucial part of the bond of trust between local residents and the politicians and governments that serve them. We cannot leave our councils in the position in which the Conservatives were happy to leave them, with no answer to the needs of their local populations because they do not have the resources to deliver. Our local residents need and deserve clean streets, well-kept parks and open spaces, good-quality road services, good adult social care and effective children’s services, good-quality homes in the social rented sector, and proper support for children with SEND. They deserve nothing less, so that they can trust that government is there to deliver for them. We owe it to our dedicated, hard-working colleagues in local government to support them.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Child poverty is a scourge on any society. It is a tragedy for individual children and families, and the untapped potential, worse health and lower attainment resulting from it hold the whole of society back. In the fifth richest economy in the world, it is also inexcusable. Under 14 years of Conservative-led Governments, the number of children living in poverty grew and poverty deepened, compounded by a housing crisis unprecedented since the second world war, the growth of insecure, low-paid work, and the imposition of the two-child cap. Action for Children estimates that 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK. That is three in 10 children—on average, nine in every classroom. Seven out of 10 children who are living in poverty have at least one parent in work. Behind those statistics are children without a bed to sleep in; children without enough nutritious food to eat; children without warm clothes in winter, living in cold, damp, mouldy homes; children who lack the basics to nurture their growth and development, who are disadvantaged before they even set foot in a classroom. This situation is not an inevitability. It has come about through the deliberate political choice to prioritise the rhetoric about the benefits system and the stereotypes about the families who rely on it, rather than looking at the evidence and the reality of people’s lives. The Child Poverty Action Group’s analysis of DWP data finds that 1.6 million children have been directly impacted by the decision to impose a cap, above the first two children in a family, on the social security measure that specifically supports families to care for children. Some 59% of those children have parents in work. The two-child cap has directly pulled 350,000 children into poverty. It is a measure that effectively punishes children for the number of siblings they have. One of the reasons I joined the Labour party many years ago is that we believe that every child deserves to have the opportunity to succeed. We do not judge children on the circumstances of their birth or the decisions of their parents. I am therefore delighted that the Government are taking action to remove the pernicious two-child cap and to lift 400,000 children out of poverty.

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the announcement that the UK will rejoin Erasmus+. I had the opportunity to live and work in Europe as a young person aged 18, and it was an experience that has continued to benefit me throughout my life. I particularly welcome the extension of the scheme beyond study, and the Government’s desire to extend that opportunity to young people from all backgrounds. It is one of the very many detriments of Brexit that young people were denied the opportunity to live and work and study through the Erasmus scheme. Having announced this welcome development, can the Minister confirm that he will now be turning his attention to some of the other detriments that continue to be experienced, particularly by small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, as a consequence of the inability to trade in Europe because of barriers resulting from Brexit? Can he confirm that work is ongoing in that regard, and that all options that are in the national interest will remain on the table?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary spoke in her statement of Israeli restrictions strangling the Palestinian economy. These are not restrictions; they are strategic attempts to undermine the viability of Palestine by illegal settlement, harassment, intimidation, murder and displacement of Palestinians from their land. Illegal settlements are still being fuelled by UK funds through trade in illegal goods and services produced there. That is completely unacceptable. I call on the Foreign Secretary to introduce a full ban on trade in goods from illegal settlements in the west bank, and to extend the sanctions already introduced on organisations like the Israel Land Fund to halt the flow of resources that are making this illegal activity possible.

• 29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Government are right to focus on how to improve education for every young person. If the hon. Member will bear with me, I will come on to some wider points about the importance of the IB, and the features of the IB that should be applicable more widely across the education sector. We need to be clear that we are talking about 1% of schools across the country, and that the other 99% of schools and colleges have many deep challenges. The Government are right to turn their attention to them as well. How can the Government ensure that every young person has opportunities for enrichment and opportunities to develop broad transferable skills? Given the shockingly high figure of one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training, how can the Government ensure that post-16 education is engaging, inspiring and exciting for all young people? Where I take issue with the Government is in relation to the lack of consultation underpinning their decision to redeploy funding within the large programme uplift.

• 29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will elaborate on consultation and engagement in a moment, but I encourage Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on the role that their own Government played in the shockingly deep cuts to 16-to-19 education across the board from 2010, and the implications of those decisions in what the current Government are now trying to tackle. Engagement with schools and colleges on the decision would have been helpful. Given the Government’s objectives for the economy, I understand the focus on STEM subjects and pupils taking four or more A-levels, but STEM subjects are not the only ones with a higher cost base to deliver. Some creative subjects with direct links to employment in the creative industries also carry higher costs, which can exclude students from lower-income backgrounds. In the context of the Government’s objective of ensuring parity of esteem between vocational and technical routes and academic ones, it is possible to imagine how the redeployment of the large programme uplift could have helped to increase quality in vocational and technical courses. Evidence of consideration of a range of options and an understanding of the views of those working in the sector would have been helpful in the context of the decision. The Government’s ambitious programme of education reform will have significant implications for post-16 education. The curriculum and assessment review, the post-16 White Paper, the introduction of V-levels, the youth guarantee and technical excellence colleges will all have potentially profound and positive implications for the opportunities available to young people and the quality of the education they receive.

• 29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this important debate. Post-16 education is a vital stage of a young person’s life. Whether they are following an academic, vocational or technical pathway, it is the stage at which they can focus more on the subjects they love, exercise greater choice over their learning, and begin to think more about where they want their education to take them, whether into further or higher education or employment. It is also a stage at which wider enrichment is vital, helping young people to develop broader transferable skills, find their talents, grow in confidence and expand into their growing freedom and independence. However, funding for 16-to-19 education in schools and colleges has been significantly cut in real terms. Per-pupil funding had fallen by approximately 11% for colleges and 23% for school sixth form by 2024-25, compared with 2010-11 levels. That decline is the largest in any part of the education sector from nought to 19, and it has not been fully addressed, even with recent increases in funding. That has left many schools and colleges working hard to deliver a broad and enriched education for their 16 to 19-year-old students in the context of severe resource limitations. There is no doubt that the international baccalaureate is a welcome development in 16-to-19 education. Its programme of study allows students to maintain a broader base, studying six subjects compared with the three of four that are typical for students taking A-levels. The IB also has a focus on broader skills and on creativity, as well as a more diverse range of assessment methods. It has many features that should be common to all post-16 education. But the IB is taught in just 20 of the 2,132 schools and colleges in the state sector that offer 16-to-19 education—less than 1% of those institutions—and in less than 10% of independent schools. The Government’s decision to redeploy funding from the large programme uplift for the IB must be seen in the context of the broader challenges they face. Given the education funding landscape they inherited, how can they deliver an excellent education for every 16 to 19-year-old student across academic, vocational and technical pathways?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  Fundamentally, we are talking about relationships in this debate, particularly between schools and parents. The best way to build strong relationships is not through punitive measures. We need to properly resource schools, through the wider policy work of Government, to rebuild the relationships that were so damaged by the pandemic, and to make progress in this area. Finally, I come back to where I started. Family time matters, and family holidays are important periods of fun and restoration. I call on the Government to do more—to work with the travel industry to stop the exploitation of families with school-age children through unfair price hikes, perhaps by introducing a new family-friendly charter mark for companies that even out their pricing throughout the year—and to continue to ease the cost of living pressures that far too many families face, so that every child can thrive both in school and at play.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education: Skills Needed in the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  My Committee’s recent report on further education and skills highlights the poor amount of information on vocational and technical training opportunities, including apprenticeships, available to young people while they are in school. We recommend that UCAS be expanded to provide a single portal for information on academic, vocational and technical opportunities, so that every young person is aware of how they can train in the skills that they need to access a good job. Will the Secretary of State consider this recommendation, and work with the Department for Education to deliver it?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education: Skills Needed in the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help ensure that post-16 education provides the necessary skills to support the economy.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will come on to some of the points about the better co-ordination needed to solve some of these problems. We need an approach that enables us to join things up to understand which of our stations are most likely to secure funding because of their footfall, because they link up with particular bus routes or because they are relatively lower cost and therefore easier to deliver. The process, as it stands, is not transparent, and there is no support available for communities to prepare for it. As an example, I have been approached by residents in Dulwich in recent weeks who would like my support in moving forward a proposal for step-free access at North Dulwich station. A feasibility study would be helpful so we can all understand where lifts could be installed and the broad costs of doing so. But Southwark council has no land interest in North Dulwich station, and there are no major development sites in the local area. At a time when local authority funding is constrained, it would be helpful to have the Minister’s advice on how to move such a proposal forward. Another example of the urgent need for more joined-up preparatory support is Loughborough Junction station, currently being supported by a local community campaign called “Lift Up Loughborough Junction”. A tiny station occupying just half a railway arch, Loughborough Junction has a particularly long, steep flight of stairs up to its two platforms. It has seen an increase in passenger use compared with pre-covid levels, likely as a consequence of new nearby housing development. Through that development, some funding has been allocated towards improvements at the station, but there is at present no mechanism to decide how that is to be spent or to deliver the improvements. Delivering step-free access at Loughborough Junction station is complicated. It cannot be done within the current station’s curtilage due to insufficient space, so the station would need to expand either into adjacent arches or on to a site to the rear of the current station. The ownership of those sites is complex, with the Arch Company responsible for neighbouring arches, Network Rail responsible for the structural integrity of the arches, the train operating company Southern responsible for the station, and private land ownership to the rear. If we are to solve the problem of accessibility at the station, there must be a way of joining up those interests, undertaking feasibility work, creating partnerships that can bid for funding together and moving the project forward. As residential development in the area continues to expand, a station that already feels unsafe at peak times due to the large number of passengers will become more and more dangerously overcrowded, and disabled residents, families with young children, and frail and elderly people will continue to be locked out of rail travel. In 2018, the then Government’s inclusive transport strategy set out the aim of achieving equal access to the rail network by 2030. That is just a few years away, and we are very far away from realising that goal. In the meantime, Government policy has continued, quite rightly, to seek to deliver continued modal shift from private cars to public transport where possible, but modal shift does not happen by encouragement alone. It requires meaningful levels of Government investment to make public transport an accessible, convenient and attractive option, and accessibility is the basic minimum requirement. The Government can encourage people all they like, but if they are literally locked out of using public transport, it will not make a difference for residents with disabilities, parents who need to travel with young children, the less mobile and the elderly. I secured this debate to seek help from my hon. Friend the Minister. Is he considering the criteria for future rounds of Access for All funding so that areas such as mine, with many inaccessible stations, will not continue to be overlooked by that funding stream because we do not have the highest levels of footfall, major transport interchanges or nearby development sites. What representations is he making to the Chancellor in relation to the Budget about the overall quantum of Access for All funding, so that future rounds of the scheme can start to deliver the step change in railway station accessibility that is needed across the whole country? Is he underlining to the Chancellor that Access for All funding should be part of the strategy to support disabled people who want to work to get to work? Will the Minister consider a better approach to pre-bidding support for Access for All, on a locality basis, to help local communities and councils to understand how best to prioritise their stations for Access for All bids, and to create strong local partnerships in which multiple agencies need to be involved? May I ask for his support in relation specifically to the complex situation at Loughborough Junction station, and to the need for a feasibility study for North Dulwich station and feasibility work at Gipsy Hill station, which requires accessibility works to one platform only? Finally, can he tell disabled people in Dulwich and West Norwood, and across the country, when they can expect the equal access to the rail network that is their right?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood · Hansard source

  More

  I am honoured to be intervened on in an Adjournment debate by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank him for his intervention. He is right that adequate staffing at railway stations is a really important part of making stations accessible. All too often, disabled passengers have to endure unacceptably long waits when there is a failure in communication. The railway operating companies need to continue to improve their service so that not only the stations but rail travel itself is fully accessible and disabled passengers can get the support to which they are entitled. All our stations should be accessible, and it is therefore important that the Government work to increase the funding available and make changes to the criteria for Access for All funding. Currently, the Access for All programme prioritises stations with high levels of footfall and the availability of third-party funding—usually through local development—as well as proximity to a hospital or major interchange and non-specific rail industry priorities. The majority of the 10 stations in my constituency are busy but would not rank among the highest footfall locations in the country. They do not have significant development sites in close proximity or other third-party sources of funding available. They are not next to a hospital and we cannot account for non-specific rail industry priorities.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the significant issues that affect my constituents across Dulwich and West Norwood because of the lack of accessibility at our local railway stations. The Dulwich and West Norwood constituency covers part of Lambeth and part of Southwark. Unlike much of the north of those boroughs, we are poorly served by the London underground network; there is only Brixton tube station, just inside a corner of my constituency. Instead, my constituents rely on rail and buses to get to central and outer London, as well as for more local journeys. We have many stations—10 to be precise, with an 11th just outside the boundary. The stations in my constituency are Brixton, East Dulwich, Gipsy Hill, Herne Hill, Loughborough Junction, North Dulwich, Sydenham Hill, Tulse Hill, West Dulwich and West Norwood. Only three—Herne Hill, East Dulwich and West Norwood—are accessible, and only Herne Hill meets up-to-date standards of accessibility and has lifts to all platforms. The ramps at East Dulwich station are too steep, and West Norwood ticket office is not step-free, although the platforms are accessible from the street. The lack of step-free access at our local railway stations causes major problems for many of my constituents. Wheelchair users are effectively locked out of rail travel entirely at inaccessible stations. Parents and carers for small children may or may not manage to carry or drag their buggy up and down flights of stairs at their station. Even if they can, it is neither safe nor comfortable. Frail and elderly passengers are confronted with impossibly difficult climbs; there are really long flights of stairs at several stations. Loughborough Junction and West Dulwich in particular have long, steep flights of stairs that can be difficult and daunting for many passengers. The lack of accessibility at our local stations is counter to two of the Government’s strategic objectives. Inaccessible stations are a significant barrier to work for many physically disabled people, who cannot easily access employment in the wider London economy because they cannot get to work from Dulwich and West Norwood. Further, many people will not make the modal shift from private cars to public transport, as the Government want them to, while our stations remain inhospitable and inaccessible because the only way to access the platforms is via a steep flight of stairs. During every round of Access for All funding since I was first elected more than a decade ago, I have pressed for stations in my constituency to be granted funding to increase the number of step-free stations, but the previous Government failed to prioritise investment in my constituency. Herne Hill was upgraded with the installation of lifts under the Access for All programme in 2013. That is more than a decade with no further advancement in the accessibility of local rail travel.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the commitment to recognising the Palestinian state later this month. That is an essential step, and there can be no further delay. Israeli Government support for illegal settlement in the west bank and the decision to build in the E1 area are strategically designed to undermine the viability of a Palestinian state. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore commit to introducing a ban on all settlement trade, including services and investments, so that money from the UK cannot be used to fund that illegal occupation, and so that the state of Palestine, which we are rightly recognising, has a chance of becoming a reality?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  Giving every child the best possible start in life should be a driving mission of every Government. Investment in the early years and in a high-quality education for every child delivers among the highest returns of any area of public spending; they are literally building the foundations of a child’s life. Governments who get policy right in these areas reap benefits in health and wellbeing, in economic growth and in lower crisis-related costs. The previous Labour Government made huge strides in this area. The longitudinal studies now confirm that children who lived close to a Sure Start centre did better in their GCSEs, and that hospitalisation of children was reduced and so was the need for specialist support in education. But a year ago this Government inherited the legacy of a previous Government who had not prioritised the needs of children for 14 years. Sure Start had been largely dismantled and school and further education budgets cut, early years funding had not kept pace with inflation, key services like health visiting and midwifery were scaled back, and SEND provision and CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—were stretched to breaking point, with increasing numbers of children in the care system, who are all too often being failed. Our children have been buffeted by the multiple blows of austerity, Brexit, the covid-19 pandemic and the Liz Truss mini-Budget bearing down on public services that support children, young people and their families, resulting in more of childhood being left to chance, with existing disadvantages and barriers to opportunity remaining in place and being allowed to perpetuate. The Education Committee recently published our report on children’s social care. Children’s social care is a good place to start thinking about this Government’s opportunity mission, because it is where some of the most egregious barriers can be found—for the children whose families need the most support, those whose lives are scarred by abuse or neglect, and those for whom the state has both the gravest responsibility and a huge opportunity to make a difference. The independent review of children’s social care commissioned by the previous Government described the system they presided over as in need of a “total reset”. Spending on early help and support services—the preventive, nurturing support delivered by Sure Start centres, health visitors, community nurses and early years practitioners—has plummeted, while spending on crisis interventions, including out-of-area residential placements often at great cost, have spiralled. The number of children entering the care system has been rising, and perhaps most telling of all is that the outcomes for care-experienced people are absolutely dire. This failure is so significant that, if the Government are serious about tackling homelessness and about tackling the crisis in the criminal justice system, they must turn their attention to the plight of care-experienced people, who are so vastly over-represented in both those populations. They are far less likely to be in education, employment or training than their peers, and far more likely to have poor mental health.