Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The right to freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and must be protected. I congratulate my neighbour and West Yorkshire colleague, the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), on securing the debate. I speak to join him and others in trying to help tackle antisemitism in UK universities, but also antisemitism anywhere and everywhere in our wonderful country. I begin by placing on the record my clear and unequivocal belief that antisemitism, like all other forms of religious discrimination, is a scourge that has no place in our society, and that we should do all we can to stamp it out. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate or to incite hatred or violence against others, including against Jewish people. It deeply saddens me when I read news stories about how Jewish students have been feeling increasingly unsafe on university campuses in recent years, or reports about things such as the Union of Jewish Students poll that found that one in five students would be reluctant to, or would never, house-share with a Jewish student. I am not Jewish and I am not going to try to deflect attention away from the subject of this debate, but I share some of the experiences of Jewish students. They may not, thankfully, be as extreme or intense, but I understand some of what those students are or may be going through and I have complete sympathy. I could cite similarly harrowing statistics, but other Members have already mentioned those, so I will skip them because of the lack of time. This reality is unacceptable, plain and simple—no ifs, buts or maybes. No Jewish student should be made to feel intimidated or of less worth because of their beliefs. We must demand a far more proactive and co-ordinated response from Government, higher education institutions and civil society organisations. Universities must not only have robust policies in place, but actively enforce them. Reporting mechanisms need to be accessible and trusted. Support services must be properly resourced. And there must be a clear message from leadership at every level that antisemitism has no place in our educational institutions or our society. At the same time, it would be remiss of me not to say that it also deeply troubles me when I look across the pond to the United States and hear accusations of antisemitism—including at protests on campuses—thrown around without sufficient care in response to criticisms of the Israeli state’s actions in the middle east. Just last week, the independent UN inquiry found that Israel continues to commit genocide by deliberately targeting Palestinian children in Gaza. However, Israel is a state. It is a Government. It has its army. It does not represent or reflect the views or actions of Jews around the world. However, on campuses and across our country, many students are engaging in protests because of their principled opposition to these gross injustices. Those protests cannot and must not include acts or words of antisemitism. It is therefore vital that we do not conflate legitimate and courageous defiance of this Government’s apathy in the face of inhumanity with the specific and pernicious form of racism that antisemitism constitutes. Safeguarding free speech and the freedom to protest is not in tension with protecting Jewish students from discrimination. Rather, the two must go hand in hand. If we dilute the definition of antisemitism to incorporate righteous criticism of Israel, we risk eroding trust among students and communities. It is also important to acknowledge that discrimination rarely exists in isolation. Alongside antisemitism, we are witnessing worrying and cascading levels of Islamophobia, with hostility and suspicion towards entire Muslim communities intensifying and spreading in response to individual incidents and subsequent inflammatory comments by politicians and public figures. What is needed is a consistent, principled approach that protects students from harassment and hate, while also upholding their rights to political expression and peaceful protest, and that brings communities together, rather than pitting them against one another. Ultimately, this is about the kind of society we want to be—one where Jewish students are safe and supported, where Muslim students are free from prejudice and suspicion, and where all students can engage critically with the world around them without fear of being mischaracterised or silenced. We must be able to hold two truths at once: that antisemitism on campuses is real and must be confronted decisively, and that legitimate political dissent from students and academics, peaceful, principled and rooted in justice, must be protected. If we can strike that balance, we will not only make our universities safer, but we will make them stronger. I conclude by extending my support to the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley and Members across the House in working together to tackle and address antisemitism in UK universities and wider society.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for his unity and solidarity with Jewish students and Jewish people. Does he agree that conflating Israel with all Jewish people is also something that should be avoided, as it can lead to an increase in antisemitism?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that people who are trying to divide us will sometimes pit one community against another, and where one community is being rightly and legitimately supported, they will try to weaponise that in another community and create friction? Does he also agree that the steps taken by the Government can be replicated across communities, and that communities and leaders in each of the discriminated-against communities should work together so that the support cannot be weaponised?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree with the hon. Member. I sympathise with the Government—there are huge pressures in all policy areas, particularly children’s services, education and healthcare, and now they have to deal with the tech giants. The Government introduced age-gating for pornographic sites so that people under the age of 18 could not access them. That was absolutely the right thing to do; despite the fact that there are workarounds and technical ways for people to bypass that age-gating, it does project the majority of children from exposure to pornography. Now, the Government must deal with the virtual drug dealers. They must implement laws to protect our children from the harms those companies cause, and must also introduce laws to obligate them to change and redesign their platforms in order to design out those harms. Academic studies have found that 24% of suicides among 10 to 19-year-olds are linked to high-risk use of digital technology. Heartbreaking cases such as that of the 14-year-old Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life in 2017 and whose legacy lives on through the Molly Rose Foundation, have demonstrated that social media use is undoubtedly contributing to rising rates of self-harm among young people. This is not some future risk; it is a real and present harm. We do not need more consultation, delay or half-measures; we need this Government to insist on safety by design to protect children from exposure to damaging content and platforms, and not to implement anything that aims at damage limitation. We need this Government to listen to our citizens, not to the tech giants. As such, I once again join right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the House in calling on the Government to commit to raising the age of access to social media to 16 and banning the use of all mobile phones in schools, rather than continuing to leave children exposed to systems that are causing irreversible and unnecessary harm.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I rise to call on the Government to support Lords amendments 38 and 106, which would raise the age of access to harmful social media platforms to 16 and ban mobile phones from schools. A broad range of extremely well-informed speeches has already been made in the House, so I will focus on the recent and not-so-recent scientific research that shows the harms of mobile phones and social media in particular. Social media and access to mobile phones for children reduce attention spans and weaken executive function. Screen time, especially from smartphones, fast-paced videos and multitasking apps, is linked to poorer executive functions, including sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and working memory. Neurocognitive explanations suggest that highly stimulating screens promote rapid attentional shifting, weakening a child’s ability to concentrate in less stimulating real-world environments such as classrooms. Screen time also creates language issues and verbal delays in early childhood, infancy and toddlerhood. Studies reportedly show that higher screen exposure before the age of three is associated with smaller expressive vocabularies, delayed language milestones and reduced conversational turn-taking. That effect is largely explained by displacement. Screen time displaces direct adult-child verbal interaction, which is essential for language development. Importantly, passive consumption and videos and scrolling are significantly more harmful than interactive co-used media. That increases the demand on our education system to support the children who are behind in their development, so banning phones will not only protect children, but allow them to learn at the rate that human beings are able to learn. Access to mobile phones and social media also alters brain development. MRI studies provide biological evidence supporting behavioural findings. Higher screen exposure in young children is associated with thinner cortical regions involved in language, attention and higher-order cognition, as well as altered maturation of visual and executive control networks, and reduced structural integrity in the frontal and temporal regions linked to self-regulation. In our society, we have an increase in the number of children with neurodiverse conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The use of mobile phones and social media and fast, short-clip videos increases ADHD-like symptoms and attention dysregulation. Multiple longitudinal studies, including analyses of more than 10,000 children, link higher screen exposure to increased inattention, impulsivity and ADHD symptom severity. Let me turn to the cognitive effects of screen multitasking in adolescence. Frequent mobile phone use, particularly media multitasking, is associated with lower working memory capacity, poorer sustained attention and reduced cognitive control efficiency. The scientific consensus shows that well-supported adverse cognitive effects from the use of mobile phones and social media include weaker attention and executive function, language delays in early childhood, reduced learning efficiency, ADHD-related symptoms and atypical brain development patterns. Earlier in the week, I was in the Chamber for the Government’s statement on their intention to halve the use of knives in our society and among young people over the next 10 years. I welcome those kinds of approaches, which protect our children and wider society. We have heard about the recent court cases in the US, and we know from leaked internal tech company documents that the social media companies were fully aware of the harm they were causing. They were designing in the addictive nature of their platforms, and they know that children want to leave their platforms but feel unable to do so because of their addictive nature. I would class those companies as virtual drug dealers. When people—particularly children—are exposed to the platforms they are providing, they become addicted to those platforms and unable to wean themselves off them.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her expertise in this area. Recognising biological sex is in the interests of trans people as well. We are not just different on the outside; we are different on the inside. Hospitals need to be able to treat people for who they are, not who they believe they are or who they want to be. We could end up with mistreatment, misdiagnoses and further litigation against the NHS for causing harm to somebody because we did not explicitly take into account their biological sex. The law already allows flexibility to accommodate the implementation of human rights for all. It permits the provision of single-sex services where justified, while also enabling appropriate alternative arrangements, such as unisex facilities, where these are needed to ensure that everyone is treated with respect. However, the clarity in principle that the ruling provides must now be matched by clarity in practice. We are now seeing movement from organisations. The International Olympic Committee recently announced that it will not allow non-biological women to compete in women’s sport. Girlguiding has now updated its guidance to go back to admitting guides based on biological sex. That is not discrimination against trans people; it is just common sense, and the protection and implementation of existing rights for girls and women. In that spirit, I ask the Minister three specific questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that public bodies and service providers are not delaying implementation of the judgment under the mistaken belief that they must wait for further guidance before acting? The Supreme Court ruling was black and white, and gave all employers, the public sector and sporting bodies enough information to proceed with implementing it. Secondly, how do the Government intend to support service providers in striking the balance between single-sex and unisex services in practice, particularly in frontline settings such as healthcare, education and local authority services, where the consequences of uncertainty are often felt most acutely? Finally, can the Minister set out how the Government intend to communicate clearly with the public about what the judgment means in practice, so that both women and trans people understand their rights and protections under the law? As legislators, we have a special responsibility to ensure that the law remains coherent and relevant to the world we live in. One year on, I hope that the message is clear. The law has been clarified. The rights of women to access single-sex services are justified and recognised. The protections afforded to trans people remain in place, and the responsibility now lies with all of us—whether that be the Government, public bodies, parliamentarians, employers, sporting bodies or any other group—to ensure that this clarity is translated into consistent, lawful practice.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this profoundly important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing it. SEND is one of the most common and most urgent issues raised by struggling families and overstretched schools in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, as it is for all Members from across the House. The situation cannot be allowed to continue. We all agree that the system is broken and needs to be improved. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the scale of the crisis and are attempting to bring forward wide-ranging reform, but good intentions must be matched by good policy. Consequently, I believe that a number of concerns must be addressed urgently if the reforms are to succeed. First, on consultation, the Government have told us that their new framework is being shaped in partnership with families, schools and other stakeholders, but serious questions remain about the adequacy and scope of that consultation. Recent reports show that Members have been effectively guided by the Department of Education on how they should respond to the consultation. That risks fatally undermining confidence in the process; consultation must be genuine and transparent. Secondly, on implementation, it is concerning that local authorities are already being instructed to begin reforming their systems by developing local plans and reshaping provision before the consultation has even concluded. That risks creating confusion, inconsistency and instability in a system that is already under immense strain, and it risks the perception that public consultation and consent for vital policy proposals are being treated as an afterthought, rather than as central to policy making process. Thirdly, on capacity, ambitious reforms require the workforce to deliver them. We need clarity on how many trained professionals will be required, how initiatives such as the proposed experts-at-hand service will be staffed, and how training for teachers will be delivered. Without that detail, we run the risk of expectations outstripping reality. Finally, on accountability, any changes to tribunal arrangements must not weaken families’ ability to challenge decisions, not least because they have been so successful in appealing them—we have heard the 99% figure. For many parents, the tribunal system is not an optional preference but a safeguard of last resort that must be preserved. Will the Government ensure that the ongoing consultation genuinely reflects the voices of families, schools and experts? Will it provide clarity on workforce training and funding? Will it protect the rights of families to challenge decisions? Will it ensure that reforms are implemented in a way that is transparent, evidence-led and properly resourced and has built-in accountability? If we get this right, we can transform lives for the better, but if we get it wrong, children will bear the cost for years to come.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as the harm caused to the children who do not receive timely support for their special needs, if children are in the wrong setting, harm is caused to the teachers, who are not qualified to support those children in their normal, mainstream setting? If we can do the assessments and get the right support quicker, it will help not only the children, but the educationalists providing their education.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief in China · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. With respect to the Uyghurs, does she agree that what we are witnessing in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China is not simply a matter of restricted religious freedoms, but something far more grave? She points to the fact that the Uyghurs are subject to mass detentions and so-called re-education camps, and are used in forced labour by the Chinese Government. Does she agree that this bears all the hallmarks of crimes against humanity and, as many credible voices have argued, may well constitute a genocide?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the Minister’s position; parents should have the choice to send their child to whichever school they believe is best for them. In relation to admissions, one of my first cases after becoming an MP was an automatic off-rolling of a child after she had been absent for 20 days, despite the absence having been communicated to the school and extended due to a bereavement. She was off-rolled with no process and no review, and she was out of school for nine months. Will the Minister consider reviewing this punitive policy to ensure that there is a formal review before a child is removed from their preferred school?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Member agree that anybody who comes to our country and does not pay into the system through national insurance and taxes should not be allowed to benefit from services that taxpayers fund, like the NHS, education, GPs, dentists and so on? It is a two-tier system if we are treating our care workers and healthcare professionals who come here on official visas differently from imported labour.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. We hear the phrase “postcode lottery” a lot, and we should not have a postcode lottery in our country for access to essential healthcare and educational services. Everybody should have equal access to the support that is available to other people, without having to go private. The consequences of these delayed assessments are stark. Families are pushed towards private assessments they cannot afford, entrenching a two-tier system that makes a mockery of the NHS’s spirit of free care at the point of use by rendering access contingent upon income. The Justice Gap also reports that around 25% of prisoners have ADHD, with many entering the system having not been diagnosed. They are more prone to reoffending. I will conclude to give time for other colleagues to speak. I urge the Government to look at this issue holistically, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and provide support for children, adults and offenders. I believe that investment would render a greater return.

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Funding Shortfall · Hansard source

  More

  In Kirklees, where my constituency sits, three quarters of EHCPs—education, health and care plans—took more than 20 weeks. Some 46% took over one year, which is six and a half times higher than the 2024 national average of 7.3%. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure timely access to legally entitled support for children with SEND in Kirklees?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome and commend this Government’s road safety strategy. Late last year, there were three incidents outside Lydgate junior and infant school, Headfield school and Westmoor primary school in my constituency—thankfully, there were no fatalities. I joined West Yorkshire police, local councillors and the affected schools to conduct a road safety campaign outside those schools. In some parts of the country, roads outside schools are temporarily closed for 30 minutes at the beginning and end of the day, and other schools have no-parking zones that extend to ensure that there are no safety risks. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government will take to increase road safety outside schools?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Government should hang their head in shame for leaving our judicial system—the courts, the backlog and the prison system—in such disarray. A 2022 survey of 373 legal professionals, conducted by barrister Keir Monteith KC and the University of Manchester, found that 56% of respondents had witnessed at least one judge acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant, while 52% had witnessed discrimination in judicial decision making, and concluded that there is “institutional racism in the justice system”. Given that the Justice Secretary now seeks to remove juries, does he foresee greater injustice, prejudice and racial discrimination in our courtrooms, and what steps is he taking to tackle the existing and likely increase in institutional racism?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Speech and Language Therapies · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency sits in Kirklees, which continues to face some of the most severe pressures in the country in relation to high needs and SEND provision, including long waits for EHCP assessments and strained specialist support. What additional resources will the Department provide to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities in areas such as my constituency receive timely and proper support?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate. This is a heartbreaking topic. Tackling and preventing the harms being caused to children in their home demands urgent attention. When I think about domestic abuse against children, my mind often goes back to the posters we had when I was growing up, and that we may have seen recently in shopping centres and train stations, with two adults arguing and a child crouched in the corner and watching in fear. That image is everywhere when we talk about children and domestic abuse: the child on the sidelines, quietly absorbing the trauma around them. The reality is far worse than that familiar picture, because children are not just witnesses: 1.8 million children in the UK are experiencing domestic abuse right now. Women’s Aid has found that, in the last 30 years, 67 children have been killed by a parent who was also a perpetrator of domestic abuse, often during contact arrangements. That statistic and the fact it could happen during contact arrangements genuinely stopped me in my tracks. The more recent National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children briefing on child deaths due to abuse or neglect from July of this year estimates that at least one child a week is killed through abuse or neglect. In our country—in any country—that is completely unacceptable. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises children as victims in their own right, which was the right move. However, I came across another troubling fact during research for this debate. In 2022, after that legal change, less than a third of survivors who wanted support for their children were able to get it. That demonstrates that changing the law does not automatically cause tangible change. If we do not fund the services or create spaces for children to heal and feel safe, the law is just a line on a page. I was disappointed not to hear anything about funding for tackling domestic child abuse and violence against women and girls in the Budget this week. It is important that the Government back up their intentions and ambitions to tackle this with real resources and funding. I thank organisations such as the NSPCC and the Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, which work across Kirklees and West Yorkshire. My office often refers families to them, whether for counselling, for children recovering from abuse or for support when navigating domestic abuse cases. However, it is disheartening that we rely so heavily on charities to do the work that should be backed by proper Government strategy and funding. This year, the proportion of organisations providing children’s domestic abuse services without dedicated funding has doubled from 15.7% to 31.4%. That tells us everything about the state of the system. It is truly worrying after hearing last year about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls. Many of the women who come to my office with cases of domestic violence would have fled to a refuge with their children due to abuse from a partner. These issues of violence against women and girls, and protecting children from domestic abuse, go hand in hand. Yet when the number of organisations supporting children without any dedicated funding has doubled, it is hard to believe that those commitments are being matched by action. If anything, it shows that children are still an afterthought in a system that claims to protect them. Therefore, will the Minister please confirm what specific extra funding, resources and procedural changes the Government are planning or have allocated to this space? We were told by the Department for Education that, by the end of 2025, there would be a road map for a child protection authority—a recommendation that the Government received from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—but we have heard very little since. The commitments are there and the reports all show the urgent need for long-term systemic change, yet we are not seeing that change actually happening. Will the Minister confirm when the road map for a child protection authority can be expected? Children deserve better than posters of fear and a system that waits until harm has already been done; they deserve to be protected, to recover and to grow up feeling safe and loved. Right now, too many are falling through the cracks, and we owe it to them to fix that.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Children · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful speech. Does she agree that children who have suffered abuse and neglect can exhibit behaviours at school and other social settings that would have them punished or excluded from those settings? Abuse has knock-on effects and a wider impact on the whole of a child’s life.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the over 124,000 people who signed this petition, including 178 from my constituency. I join them by speaking in support of retaining the legal right to assessment and adequate support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Appropriate and fit-for-purpose education is a fundamental human right. We all agree that the current system is not just at breaking point, but broken, and the broken system perpetuates the mistreatment of parents and children. Families are going through that broken system daily, and are being broken themselves. The system was deliberately managed into decline by the previous Government, and mismanagement by local authorities means that a lot of resources are being misspent and wasted. We have heard that when parents are forced to take legal action, they are overwhelmingly successful. In 2022-23, 99% of tribunal cases challenging local authority SEND decisions were upheld in favour of families. The first step that the Government could take is to abolish the right for local authorities to deny EHCPs. That would immediately save millions of pounds across our country. I have heard from a constituent whose experience speaks to that wider problem. She has repeatedly tried to work with the council on her daughter’s EHCP, but has been met with silence and delay. Last year, she had to fight simply to secure the exam materials to which her daughter was entitled. More recently, her formal complaint about how the EHCP was being handled received little response. That is why legal rights must remain. Without them, families like that of my constituent would have no route to redress when things go wrong.

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

  More

  Before coming to the Chamber, I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on care-experienced children and young people, where I learned that, in the 2023-24, over 15,000 children in care moved home, which is 34%, and nearly 5,500 in care moved school, which is 12%. Does the hon. Member agree with me that, as part of the Government’s strategy, we need to support children in care and minimise the disruption to their lives that we can control?

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

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. I welcome the announcements by the Secretary of State and the Government on the investment and the work they plan to do. We all agree that every child in this country—regardless of postcode, parent or circumstance—deserves the best possible start in life. That is not just a slogan; it is a moral duty and a political choice. It is the foundation for a fairer, stronger and more prosperous Britain, and a critical contributor to the Government’s growth mission. I am extremely grateful for the opportunities afforded to me when I was a child. I am the eldest of six. My mother was a homemaker, and my father worked in a factory. He then fell ill and was supported by the state. I had free school meals and free school uniforms, and I had the opportunity to go to university without incurring tens of thousands of pounds of debt. I wish for those same opportunities and more for every single child in our country going forward. Yet today, far too many children are being failed by a system that is stretched, fragmented and underfunded. We are the sixth largest economy in the world, and yet we have rising child poverty, overstretched early years services, and a widening attainment and life expectancy gap between the richest and the rest. It does not have to be this way—we can and must do better. If we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we must start before birth. A child’s life chances are shaped long before they take their first breath. The health and wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers is critical for not only safe delivery, but the emotional and physical development of the child. Yet, across the UK today, midwife staffing levels are dangerously low. Prenatal and post-natal support is patchy and inconsistent. There are real maternity service inequalities for ethnic minorities and in areas of deprivation, and maternal and health needs are too often ignored. I urge the Government to take a holistic view and review the current state of maternity services across our nation and regions, and to put in the required investment to equalise those services and make them fit for purpose. This is not just a health issue; it is a social justice issue because the poorest women, who are often at the highest risk of complications, are least likely to receive the care they need. Investment in maternal care is investment in stronger families, healthier babies and a better future for all. To continue where life continues—the early years—the science is clear, as has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. A child’s brain develops faster from birth to five than at any other time. These years shape everything from health and happiness to educational success and economic opportunity, so why is it that access to high-quality early education is still a postcode lottery? Why are childcare workers, who do some of the most vital work in our society, paid less than supermarket staff? We must deliver universal high-quality childcare from the end of parental leave to the start of school, and I welcome the Government’s announcements and investment in this area. I fully support the Government’s plans to invest in the early years workforce, and we must make quality, not just quantity, a measure of success. Family is the first and foremost influence on a child’s life, yet support for families has been dismantled over the past 14 years. Health visitors have been cut and Sure Start centres closed, and too many parents have been left to struggle alone. I welcome the Government’s plans to rebuild—rebuild family hubs in every community, rebuild our health visiting service, and rebuild trust by giving parents real support and not judgment. Two of the biggest determinants of how well a child will do in life is where they are born and the income of their family. Across the UK, child poverty has been rising. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 1.6 million children are now affected by the two-child benefit cap. That means 1.6 million children whose futures are being limited by a Government policy—not by anything they have done, or by anything their families have failed to do, but by a decision to deny them the support that they need to grow and thrive. In Dewsbury and Batley, over 11,800 children are growing up in poverty. More than half of them live in working households. Those families are doing everything asked of them—going to work and trying to save—but they are still unable to meet their children’s basic needs. One parent told me: “We live in a two-bed flat with three children. I have to cycle to work because travel costs would push us into deficit. An extra £50 a week would make a huge difference.” That £50 could mean a warm coat, a school trip or proper meals for a week. It could mean a child arriving in the classroom ready to learn, not hungry and anxious. What kind of country does that to its children? We say that we want every child to have the best start in life, but how can that happen if policies deliberately push them into hardship from birth? Reducing child poverty is not just a moral obligation; it is a smart investment. It leads to better health, better educational outcomes, higher future earnings and increased tax revenue. Children are not a cost to be capped; they are our country’s future. We must also tackle the mental health crisis affecting our children and young people. CAMHS, as we know and have heard many times in this Chamber, are overwhelmed. Children are waiting months, sometimes years, for help. We need in-school mental health support teams in every school. We need early intervention, not crisis firefighting. We must train staff across education and early years in trauma-informed practice. Let me move on to education. I was blessed with the opportunity to go to school and cannot remember ever going on an empty stomach. The work that my father did, and the support that the Government provided in welfare and benefits, ensured that I did not go to school hungry. I had free school meals and came home to a warm meal. That, I am sure, made a huge difference to what I have been able to achieve in life. Education should be the great leveller, but in reality the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers is growing, not shrinking. We must strengthen the pupil premium, restore funding for early literacy and numeracy, and, yes, expand free school meals to every primary pupil, because no child should learn on an empty stomach. I welcome the Government’s announcement on providing free school meals to every child whose family is on universal credit, but I gently encourage them to consider expanding that benefit so that it is universal. This is not about short-term fixes; it is about long-term nation building and solutions. It is about a country that invests in its youngest, supports its mothers and refuses to accept inequality as inevitable. When we give children the best start in life, we all benefit, through lower crime, better health, stronger communities and a more productive economy, so let us rise to the moment. Let us stop managing decline and start investing in potential. Let us give every child, in every corner of this country, the best start in life.