Laura Trott MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I am sorry, but I really have to make some progress. Sextortion is also a huge issue on social media. In 2022, there were 10,000 reports of sextortion by snap. That was not in a year, but in one month, and those are just the ones we know about. Most horrifyingly of all, social media is culpable in dozens of children’s deaths. To give just one example, Ellen Roome’s son Jools took part, she believes, in a TikTok blackout challenge. That is where young children and teenagers are encouraged to hold their breath until they pass out. Jools died as a result in April 2022, and that was two years after the challenge had supposedly been removed from the platform. When I met Ellen and other bereaved parents, they said that, tragically, their bereaved group just keeps on growing. In the face of that, do Members know what the Government’s consultation says? It says that children like using TikTok to post dance videos. This misguided view that social media is in some way good for children, or that its benefits outweigh the harms I have spoken about, is what has got us into this position.

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

  More

  As ever, my right hon. Friend is the voice of reason in this Chamber. Turning to our amendment that deals with pupil admission numbers, Lords amendment 102, I hope the Government will try to explain why they think good and outstanding schools should be made smaller when they are oversubscribed. To be clear, that is exactly what the Government are asking Back Benchers to vote for this evening. Parental choice has been the great driver of school improvement in this country—it empowers parents to vote with their feet and encourages excellent schools—yet the Government want to turn that principle on its head. They want to cut good school places, which is bad for parents, bad for schools and, above all, bad for children. School standards are on the Order Paper this evening, and the Government want to vote against them.

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

  More

  I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I have heard Ministers argue that vulnerable children or children who are isolated need to find their community online, and I want to put that argument to rest once and for all. All the evidence shows that these children are the most likely to be exploited, groomed and harmed by social media. If a child is scared or isolated, the last thing we should do is put them on social media. It is a terrible argument, and I hope it is not repeated today. The other options that the Government present in their consultation simply do not meet the scale of the challenge. A curfew so that children can only get damaged by social media during the day does not help. Time limits so that children still see the content, but just for fewer hours, are not good enough. Getting rid of scrolling is fine, but how does that stop children being groomed? So far, three senior Labour figures have managed to grasp the seriousness of the situation: the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Health Secretary and the Labour leader in Scotland. They have judged this policy on its merits, and I hope the House manages to do the same tonight, because we are in a crisis. If Members across the House agree, they need to add their voices and vote for change.

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

  More

  I am delighted to address the 13 amendments sent back to us by the other place this evening. The volume of Lords amendments reflects the strong feelings in both Houses about the deficiencies in the Bill, but there is a chance tonight to make change for the better. At the moment, the Government seem to do their utmost to oppose anything that they did not come up with—not on merit, but because they have retreated into a tribal bunker in which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. May I suggest that this is not serving the Government very well? Let us take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First, she told me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was a “gimmick”. Then, the Prime Minister slammed it as “unnecessary”. The Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, but she said that more guidance can fix it. Finally, she is now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, in Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver one. I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but this is getting ridiculous. If the Government cannot properly argue the merits of their case, we get bad legislation. We had that problem with the Bill when it first came in. The Government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms—the very same freedoms that have delivered improved school standards in this country. Indeed, we now have the absurdity of the schools White Paper rightly saying that academies are the driving force behind school improvement, while in this Bill the Government are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Do not try to make any sense of it—it is not possible.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things that are outside the scope of the Bill. What we know is that the change made by Lords amendment 44 would have helped Sara in a way that the unamended Bill would not have done. I am not going to push Lords amendments 2 and 21 to a vote this evening, but I reserve the right to come back to them if the Government do not engage constructively in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for her brilliant work on those amendments and on the wider Bill. Turning to phones, I really want Members to understand how bad things have got with phones in schools, and why a statutory ban is necessary. I know that the Government have issued revised guidance and have asked Ofsted to enforce it, but Ofsted’s guidance on this topic still allows phones to be present in schools. I cannot overstate to Members how damaging and dangerous that is. I was thinking about how to communicate this most effectively, and given that the Government are not listening to me, to parents or to teachers, I thought that first-hand testimony from a young person might get through. I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the following account from a former pupil involves some graphic content that I sincerely wish I did not have to talk about. However, I refuse to shy away from it, because if we are exposing 13-year-olds to such content in schools, we need to be able to talk about it in this Chamber. This is testimony from a girl who was at an outstanding girls’ school that had a “not seen, not heard” phone policy. Such policies are common in many schools across the country and count as a phone ban under the Government’s definition. The Minister says that children’s voices are rarely heard—well, I hope she listens to this testimony today. “When I was around 13 or 14 years old, one of my classmates would pull out her laptop at lunch times. She would connect her laptop through her phone’s hotspot, because the school wi-fi would block any social media, and launch up social media, because some thought it was funny to see how long it took to find an old man wanking—it was never long—or how long it took for somebody to ask them their age, and when they replied with ‘14’, they would send their Snapchat for you to add. The teachers never knew, because we were alone in our forms. “Some of my friends had access to Snapchat from very young, some even primary school, but I did not. I got Snapchat when I was 12 or 13, but I remember before, my friends talking about dick pics in the changing rooms, and one said she got at least 10 in the morning. She’d put up her phone and show us by scrolling through them, just because it was funny that they would just send it. This happened after she added someone on Snapchat that she didn’t know. Others had them too. “Looking back now, I remember pretending to find everything funny, just to fit in, but actually I felt really confused and grossed out at some of the content being shared. All of this happened at school, and we probably should have talked to a teacher, but as an 11 to 14-year-old girl, you’re not going to tell your male form tutor that people were being sent dick pics in school, or that your classmates were sending porn in the form group chat. I didn’t even tell my parents until recently, because I was embarrassed, or maybe because it just seemed normal, but my mum was already pretty strict with my phone usage and if I told her what was being sent around at school, I felt like I would be in trouble and she’d take the phone away. The phone was how everyone connected, so I needed to protect it. Over time, all the sexually explicit stuff just became normal.” I remind Members that this is happening at school and, in this case, at an outstanding girls’ school. It is so far from being an isolated incident—in fact, it is the opposite. It is approaching a norm.

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

  More

  This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding young people. Let me be clear to Labour Members: the Government can choose to do nothing based on this amendment. Ministers do not have a view on whether social media should be banned, and they have put forward an amendment that does not tell us what they will do. It is extraordinary.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Supporting Children with SEND · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a specific question about SEND funding during her statement, which she failed to answer, so I will try again with the Minister today. The £4 billion for SEND announced last week, to be paid over three years, which the Secretary of State described as “new money”, is actually from within the Department’s existing spending review settlement, isn’t it?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Under what circumstances does the Secretary of State think it is appropriate for a five-year-old to socially transition?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The answer should have been “never”. That is what our guidance said, and that is what the Government’s guidance should have said. In our universities, gender-critical feminists have been kicked off campus, while today the ayatollah is being celebrated as a martyr at University College London. This is completely unacceptable, so what is the Secretary of State doing to crack down on this two-tier system, or is she going to sit on her hands while an enemy of Britain is celebrated?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Bereaved Children: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and we are all honoured to hear it.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Bereaved Children: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  May I say what a privilege it has been to be part of this debate, and how much I admire all those who have spoken about their personal stories? I do not underestimate for a second how difficult it is, but suffering a catastrophic event and trying to make other people’s lives better is about the most admirable thing someone can do. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting it in place. She is so self-evidently right in what she says: there needs to be a general strategy, and we need data to be made available. It is worth thinking about why those things have not happened to date, and making suggestions about how we can overcome those barriers in future. Governments have historically been bad at cross-departmental data collection, as we know. That has been grappled with over time, but there has been no clear solution to date. I have seen such working function more effectively on occasion, such as in cross-departmental working committees on something specific. I offer that up to the Minister as a suggestion that might work. For example, in recent years there have been changes to implement a “no wrong door” policy on reporting a death. That took a lot of time. Previously, when reporting a death, as I am sure many in this Chamber have unfortunately had to do, people had to go to multiple Government Departments before the death could be recognised. That has been changed for the better, and I hope that something similar could be adopted in this case. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), whose APPG does incredible work on these matters, mentioned good practice in schools. We should think about how to collate it more systematically. We are quite effective when it comes to education policy, through the Education Endowment Foundation, which picks up what works from an academic perspective and shares good practice among schools. By and large, that is missing in the special educational needs and disabilities space, but it is also missing here. We have heard about good practice, which I am sure exists up and down the country—the hon. Lady mentioned Oakwood primary school—but there is nowhere to share it effectively. Will the Department think about how to take that forward? I am sure that there will be guidance, and I am just as sure that it could be made better. On overall data collection, when a death is reported, it is linked to one individual rather than to a wider database. Change will need to be made on that, and the referral to the pathway is critical, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said. She also mentioned that that now happens in cases of suicide. I hope the Minister will take that up today, because we have seen that it can work. It may take time, and I think we all acknowledge that government is difficult—it is not easy to wrangle different Departments together—but that could definitely be taken forward. Before preparing for this debate, I had not realised what the figures are for the outcomes for bereaved children, and I was quite shocked. If we have not gone through this catastrophic event, it is too easy to overlook the impact it has on young people. The statistic that the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) gave about the number of offenders who have suffered a bereavement was shocking. I hope and believe that this will be even more grist to the mill for the Education Minister to try to deal with this, because it is one of many areas across Government where early intervention—helping people—is not only the right thing to do but will benefit us and wider society. What we have heard today is that many children who go through this have amazing families—we have some examples of those amazing families here today—and they have people around them who will support them, help them and do whatever they can to ameliorate this catastrophic incident. But that is not true of every family. Of course, the state will miss things, but if we can set up a system that minimises the impact of this catastrophic event on young people, that is the right thing to do. I am very grateful to be part of this House today. It is these types of debate that take place in a relatively empty Chamber on a Thursday afternoon that can really make a difference to young people across the country. We have a very good Minister here, and I am sure he is about to tell us how he is going to sort this all out after many years. I commend the many voices who have spoken up today, and I am grateful to have been here for it.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement, and her officials and advisers for briefing me over the weekend. I pay tribute to those who have pulled together a 300-page document, which I will now attempt to scrutinise in the five minutes that I have available to me today. I turn first to SEND. The principles of more support in schools, evidence-led packages, early intervention, and more speech and language therapists are welcome, but despite the 300 pages there is still much that we do not know. We do not know exactly how children will qualify for an EHCP in the future, and no clear eligibility criteria for the so-called specialist provision are set out. There will be around seven packages of support when someone gets an EHCP, but we are not told what these packages of support are, how people qualify for them or how much money will be associated with each. That makes it quite difficult to judge how effective the new system will be, let alone legislate for it. Many questions also spring from the individual support plans, or ISPs, which will take place in schools. It is not clear from the document what will trigger an ISP, nor the funding that will be associated with it. At the moment, schools generally have to cover the first £6,000 of support before an EHCP is triggered. What will be the new threshold for schools to cover? On funding, I note the £1.6 billion pot for inclusive mainstream provision over three years, which equates to £24,000 per year per school if divided evenly across every school in England. That is nowhere near enough for the extra work that schools will have to cover to write individually tailored ISPs for every SEND child. This is a mammoth burden to place on schools—one that I do not necessarily think is misplaced, but £24,000 a year is not enough to help them manage it. It is not a recipe for inclusion, but a recipe for disaster. Can the Education Secretary tell schools what additional funding will be available to help them hire extra SENCO support to help them deal with these pressures? Unbelievably, the workforce plan for 6,500 teachers—incidentally, it will not deliver 6,500 more teachers—says nothing about special educational needs provision within the workforce, perhaps because it tries to ignore primary schools altogether. On wider funding, the Government have still not said how the £6 billion black hole in SEND funding, identified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, will be filled. The latest I read today in the Financial Times is that the money will come from councils. Would the right hon. Lady care to confirm that? Are the funding pots announced today new money, or will they be coming from the Department’s existing overall budget? Has the DFE’s budget expanded beyond what was set out at the spending review at the Budget, and if so, by how much? Will these reforms save money, and if so, over what time period? Lastly on SEND, Ministers repeatedly failed over the weekend to give clarity on reassessments, so I will give the right hon. Lady one more opportunity. Will she rule out any child who currently has an EHCP having it removed—yes or no? Turning to the wider schools issue, we have the absurdity of a White Paper saying that trusts will be the main driver of system-led improvement, but the Department proposing, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, to remove the academy order by which underperforming schools are taken over by trusts. Either trusts are a driver for improvement of schools or they are not. I think they very much are a driver, and it seems the Education Secretary now agrees, so will she, with the zeal of a convert, disavow her earlier sins and reinstate the academy order? On that theme, the White Paper says: “Our best school trusts…innovate and drive excellence in standards”. Well, they used to be able to do that, but the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill takes away their ability to innovate in the curriculum, on who they employ, on the terms and conditions of employment, and even on uniforms. Again, I am delighted by the turnaround from the Education Secretary, but I ask that that is reflected in the legislation she is putting through the House. I fundamentally disagree with the proposal in the White Paper to emphasise inclusion when it comes to suspensions and exclusions. That is the wrong approach. If a pupil is behaving in a way that makes fellow pupils or a teacher unsafe, it is utterly wrong to hesitate to exclude because of inclusion. When pressure is put on schools not to exclude, we have seen tragic cases of how wrong it can go, such as that of Harvey Willgoose, and we must not make the same mistake again. There is much more to cover—funding reform, admission codes and work I would actually praise such as on maternity pay—but I dare not risk your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I close by saying that we support the principle of reform, but there is precious little clarity for SEND parents today.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  He also said, “Ban, ban, ban.”

• 19 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s words. Bristol NEU publicly celebrated the cancellation of the visit from the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), describing it as a “win” and boasting that it sent a “clear message”. Over the weekend, the head of the NEU claimed that the visit taking place “at the height of the genocide in Gaza” was a mitigating factor for excluding a British Jew from the school. That is inexcusable. I will gladly meet the right hon. Lady. Will she also back my call for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look into the NEU, and will she ask it to investigate these outrageous statements?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a disgrace that a Jewish Member of this House had his visit to a school cancelled following pressure and intimidation from pro-Palestinian protesters. That is abhorrent antisemitism. Over the weekend, the Secretary of State announced a welcome investigation into the trust, alongside Ofsted action. She said that she would “leave no stone unturned”. In that spirit, what is the right hon. Lady doing to address the role of the National Education Union in trying to prevent the visit?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case · Hansard source

  More

  This is an utterly horrific case. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I thank her officials and advisers, who took the time to brief me on it. Any parent who has ever sent their child to nursery has had a physical reaction to this news. It is just so unspeakably awful, and the betrayal of trust that has taken place is abhorrent. I know that the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this place will be with the families and children affected, and all of our collective efforts must now focus on how we do all we can to prevent this from ever happening again. With that goal in mind, I have a number of questions about the case that I want to put to the Secretary of State, with the full understanding that much of what I ask might be covered by the serious case review. I am seeking her assurances that these issues will be looked at in the future, rather than expecting full answers now. The first question is about the time it took for the images and videos on the devices in question to be looked at by the police. My understanding is that while the perpetrator was first arrested and the devices seized in June 2024, those devices were not examined, and the abusive content was not found by the police, until over a year later. This is obviously an unacceptably long delay, given that the case involved nursery children and a man who, in 2024, was barred from working with children. There clearly needs to be an expedited process for devices in cases involving children, particularly those who cannot speak and advocate for themselves. I would be grateful if the Education Secretary would confirm that she will raise this matter with the Home Secretary. Secondly, I understand that closed circuit television was in use at the nursery, but the footage was wiped during the time it took for these serious abuse offences to come to light, so we do not have access to it. This is terrible, because with that CCTV, it might have been possible to identify affected children more easily, and to spare hundreds of parents the unimaginable terror that their children might have been affected. Obviously, this links to my first point about the delays in accessing the devices, but given that in other nursery abuse cases it has also taken time for offences to come to light, looking at the retention guidance for CCTV in nurseries seems a sensible step. It would be helpful to understand whether the Education Secretary is considering such a step. Thirdly, this investigation was triggered by a member of staff at the nursery raising concerns. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those concerns were investigated immediately by the nursery, at what stage Ofsted was notified, and what steps Ofsted took? Is the Secretary of State content that a rigorous and timely process was followed by Ofsted? It will seem unbelievable to most people that this abuse was able to go on under the noses of other staff and in the daytime, without anyone else being aware. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether other concerns were raised about Mr Chan previously, whether by other nursery staff or by parents, and what checks have taken place on safeguarding procedures at this nursery chain subsequent to this incident? Lastly, according to reports, the perpetrator in question had 26,000 indecent images of children and 16 nursery devices at his home. Was it standard practice for these devices to be removed from the site? Why did nobody notice, and why was he allowed to have so many devices? Is the Education Secretary considering revised guidance about the use of devices in early years settings? I stand with the Secretary of State, officials and the police as they do all they can to seek justice for victims. We in this House will do all we can to ensure that this never happens again.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady can rail against the forecasts, the Tories, her own leaky Back Benchers and probably, privately, the Treasury all she likes, but the spending review has set departmental budgets for the year in question. There is not £6 billion down the back of the sofa, so unless she can say where else the £6 billion is coming from out of Government resource departmental expenditure limits—clearly, she just failed to do so—it must be coming out of schools or SEND. So let us try again: will she be straight with teachers, parents and her own Back Benchers, and tell us what is being cut? Is it SEND or is it schools?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There is a good reason why we have an independent economic forecaster in this country. That is because, thankfully, it does not let the Government get away with saying that £6 billion can be absorbed across Government at a time when the spending review has already allocated all the money. So let us have no more of this nonsense: where is the £6 billion coming out of? Is it SEND or is it schools?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  That formula works, with English schools storming back up the global rankings. We on the Conservative Benches will always stand up for rigour, evidence and the life-changing power of high standards. We will fight Labour’s education vandalism every step of the way.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  It doesn’t!

• 5 Nov 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I also thank Professor Francis for her work—any criticism of today’s announcement is directed not at her, but at the Government’s response to her review. I welcome some of the measures announced today. I am pleased that the Government have not moved away from our phonics reforms. In 2012, only 58% of six-year-olds met the expected reading standard; today, the figure stands at over 80%. Primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world. I also note the introduction of a year 8 reading test, which I support in principle. If properly implemented, this could help to ensure that pupils maintain strong reading skills into secondary school. However, the review recommends maths and English tests, so why is the Secretary of State not introducing a statutory maths test? I have serious concerns that the proposed wider changes will water down standards, lower expectations and divert teaching time away from the core education, which gives every child the best chance to get on in life. The temptation to make the curriculum a repository for every social concern is ever present, but when everything is a priority, nothing is. If we keep adding and adding, we risk diluting the very core that underpins academic success. There are many things that the Government talk about adding to the curriculum, but there is little honesty about what will be squeezed out as a result. I hope that the Secretary of State will be honest about what is being taken out of the curriculum, particularly in primary schools. Let me make some specific points. First, the review states: “It is vital that schools and colleges are able to innovate…and that teachers have the flexibility to extend the curriculum”. I agree, but the Government’s disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill does precisely the opposite, by making the national curriculum compulsory for all schools and stripping away teachers’ freedom to adapt to the needs of pupils. It is nonsensical to talk about innovation while stifling it. The Secretary of State should abandon her assault on academy freedoms. Secondly, the Government propose to reduce the number of exams by 10%, on the grounds that “only Singapore does more”. Well, Singapore also tops the international league tables in maths and literacy. Surely we should be learning from Singapore’s education system, not disparaging it. Thirdly, the Government propose to abolish the English baccalaureate, which we put in place in order to give all children the chance to learn an academic core. Scrapping the EBacc is a backwards step. It will steer pupils away from history and languages, leaving fewer children with an understanding of our national story and fewer equipped to engage in a global economy. The irony is not lost on me that the Education Secretary herself studied history and languages. Why is she pulling up the drawbridge behind her and denying more young people the very opportunities that she benefited from? Fourthly, the Education Secretary will introduce a new compulsory citizenship curriculum for primary schools. Forcing primary schools to use precious time to teach deprived pupils about media literacy and climate change before ensuring that they can read, write and add up is not going to encourage social mobility, which I thought Labour Members cared about. It is not clear at all how they are going to make time for this. What aspects of children’s education are being sacrificed for the Secretary of State’s political posturing? As for new lessons on digital literacy and misinformation, I feel like a broken record. The Education Secretary said on the radio this morning, “I am worried about children spending hours in their bedroom looking at poisonous material that drips hate in their ears.” I agree. The right hon. Lady is right and I have a very easy solution: get smartphones out of schools and ban all our under-16s from social media. That does not need a lesson. It is something the Government have the power to do right now to help children with the vile content that they are seeing online, and to address the behaviour issues that we are seeing in schools—social media-driven knife crime and effects on attainment. I think the Education Secretary needs a lesson on social media harms, not children. Finally, I turn to the right hon. Lady’s changes to school accountability. Professor Francis was clear in her report: do not change Progress 8. She wrote: “We are strongly committed to the Progress 8 measure…it supports both student progress and curriculum breadth. We are therefore recommending making no changes”. Yet the Education Secretary has overruled the review—the independent review that she commissioned herself. Why? We have been here before. Under the last Labour Government standards fell, ambition shrank and the attainment gap widened. The number of pupils studying core academic subjects halved. Britain slid down international rankings. It took Conservative reformers, like Michael Gove and Nick Gibb, to turn that around with evidence-driven policy, rigorous assessment and high expectation.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I will start with V-levels. If they are a continuation of the reforms that we began to simplify the post-16 qualification landscape, I welcome it, but without the White Paper it is hard to understand whether that is the case. There are fundamental questions regarding the announcement that the statement does not answer, so I hope the Secretary of State will be able to shed some light on them today. Are V-levels simply a rebranded continuation of the reforms that we began, or are they a completely new qualification that will take years to develop? What is happening with BTECs, Cambridge technicals and other applied general qualifications? Are they all being scrapped? If so, what is the timeline for that? The Secretary of State says that she will consolidate 900 qualifications, but into how many? How will employers be involved in shaping the new courses? As I said in oral questions earlier, I am deeply concerned by reports today about the introduction of the so-called lower-level qualifications aimed specifically at white working-class people. There has long been a term for that in education policy: the soft bigotry of low expectations. We reject that. Let me be clear: if this is a plan, it is an insult. Are we really saying that white working-class children are less capable of achieving the same qualifications as their peers, or that the answer to disadvantage is to lower expectations rather than to raise ambition? We should aspire to the best qualifications, teachers and outcomes for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We should not hard-bake the acceptance of second best into Government policy. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that pupils who fail their English or maths GCSE will be expected to retake them? Or is she content to assign them to second-tier qualifications? Will she ensure that every single pupil, whatever their background, can expect to be supported to achieve the same high standards? The truth is that under Labour, young people are being badly let down. Youth unemployment is rising and job prospects are sinking as a result of this Government’s choices. The Conservatives have a clear plan to put an end to debt-trap low-quality degrees and to double the budget for apprenticeships. Labour’s plan is all over the place. At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister declared that the ambition for 50% of young people to go to university is not “right for our times”. The Prime Minister clearly has not been paying attention, as he abolished a target that the Conservatives had already got rid of. What is more, today’s plan, as set out, would mean two thirds of young people would be in higher-level learning, but, as I understand it, with only 10% in higher technical education or apprenticeships. That would increase the proportion of those going to university from 50% to around 57%. Only a Prime Minister like this one could abolish a target that does not exist, then accidentally announce one that goes further than the non-existent target he just pretended to get rid of. It is rather rich for the Secretary of State to boast that she has taken decisive action to fix university finances—the House will forgive me if I take that with a pinch of salt. Before the election, she promised that graduates “will pay less” under Labour. Well, it turns out that they will pay more—quite a lot more—and every penny of the extra cost this year is swallowed by Labour’s national insurance jobs tax. To be absolutely clear, the rise in tuition fees is a spending commitment, as it costs the Exchequer significant sums. The cost does not just fall on students; it falls on the taxpayer too. When we were in government, we introduced T-levels and degree-level apprenticeships and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, because that is what ensures that young people have the best start in life. All this Government are doing is embedding the soft bigotry of low expectations in our system and doing nothing to help young people with debt-trap degrees. It is not good enough.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What we did for 14 years was improve school standards. Not content with destroying standards, this afternoon the Secretary of State will, according to media reports, introduce a new lower-level qualification targeted at white working-class pupils. That is simply watering down standards for some of our most deprived children. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under this Government, the soft bigotry of low expectations is back?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Education Secretary talks about wanting to improve outcomes for white working-class boys, yet disadvantaged children in Wales are being failed by the very model that she wants to introduce here in England. Is it not the case that the best thing she can do for white working-class pupils is to stop her school reforms?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Methanol Poisoning (Travel Advice) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require travel advice issued by the Secretary of State and other persons to include guidance about the risks of methanol poisoning; and for connected purposes. I have been working closely on this issue on behalf of one of my constituents, Chloe Lassetter, who alongside her family, Sue, Neil, Tom and Amanda, have been fighting to raise awareness of the dangers of methanol poisoning abroad following the tragic death of Simone White last year. As Members may have seen from media coverage at the time, Simone was travelling with her friend Bethany in Laos. They were staying in a small riverside town about two hours north of the capital. It is a hub for backpackers travelling across south-east Asia. It was there that Simone and her friend consumed free shots of alcohol offered at the hostel. The next day both felt unwell, but they carried on with their plans. Hours later, after boarding a bus to their next destination, things worsened: Bethany fainted; Simone vomited. They were eventually taken to a local hospital, but doctors had no idea what was wrong and initially suspected food poisoning. Still confused and deteriorating, the girls made it to a private hospital. I cannot imagine how frightened and confused they must have been at this point, but sadly, by then it was too late for Simone. She started having seizures during dialysis and was eventually taken for emergency brain surgery. The surgery relieved the pressure but caused bleeding and the other side of her brain started to swell. The results confirming methanol poisoning were not available until two weeks later, but by then Simone had sadly already passed away. Although Bethany recovered following her hospitalisation, six other young people fell victim to suspected methanol poisoning, having drunk at the same hostel. Two young Australians, two young Danish women and an American all lost their lives. As the Australian Prime Minister said in November, this is “every parent’s worst nightmare”. My heart goes out to all the families who lost loved ones in the most unbelievably tragic circumstances. Over the last year, I have learnt so much about Simone, who was a much-loved young woman. She had a brilliant life ahead of her, and when I attended her funeral, it was clear that she was deeply loved by her friends and family. A year ago, like so many of us here, I did not know much about methanol poisoning, yet over 1,000 people die from it every single year worldwide. This is such a huge danger, but barely any of us know about it. I also went backpacking after university but never knew about the dangers, and sadly, the same is true of so many of our young people. That must change. For Members who are less aware than we should be, methanol is tasteless and has only a faint smell, making it impossible to tell if a drink has been contaminated. When consumed, it can lead to a coma, convulsions, blindness, nervous system damage and death. Medical specialists say drinking as little as 25 ml of methanol can be fatal, but it is sometimes added to drinks because it is cheaper than alcohol. Since their devastating loss, Simone’s family have campaigned tirelessly to prevent similar tragedies from affecting other families. Alongside Simone’s friend Bethany, they have been raising awareness of the dangers of methanol poisoning, and it was an honour earlier this year to help to arrange a parliamentary drop-in session on the subject, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson). The family were joined by representatives of the travel industry, the National Poisons Information Service, the British Toxicology Society and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to educate MPs, and the message was clear: awareness saves lives, but only when Government guidance is accurate, clear and consistent. Sadly, current official travel advice is falling short. In some high-risk countries, there is very little warning at all. Where advice does exist, it is vague and understated. Travellers are told that certain drinks “might carry a risk” or that they “should exercise caution.” This is not a matter of caution: this is about a lethal, preventable danger. I appreciate that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has updated the health section of the travel advice on its website, but we must do more to make the warnings clearer and more explicit, so that information is more readily available to everyone. The Government’s Travel Aware website has an informative section on methanol poisoning, but more must be done to make that advice and guidance better known to young people before they travel. As things stand, they really have to search to find it. My Bill, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the hon. Members for Dartford, for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), proposes a straightforward, proportionate solution. It does not attempt to police alcohol sales abroad. It does not require costly programmes or enforcement. It simply requires the Government to provide prominent, clear and consistent guidance about methanol poisoning for countries where the risk is known to exist. Other Governments have already taken steps to warn their citizens. Australia’s Smartraveller service provides unambiguous, practical advice and reaches young travellers through targeted campaigns. We should do no less, and we must not be left behind. Families such as Simone’s, who have endured unimaginable grief, are not asking for the impossible. They are asking for honesty, clarity and actionable guidance, so that other families do not have to suffer the same loss. We have already shown in this House that collaboration between families, experts and parliamentarians can and does raise awareness. Now it is time to turn awareness into action. I know that Ministers in the Foreign Office are well aware of Simone’s story, as we have exchanged many letters on the topic, and the Foreign Office kindly hosted me, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the family at a meeting earlier this year. I thank them for their engagement to date and I look forward to continue working with them, as I know they understand the grave risks at stake. As Simone’s mother, Sue White, said: “If it can happen to Simone, it can happen to anybody”. So let’s start the process today to prevent future tragedies. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Laura Trott, Gareth Bacon, Jim Dickson, Tom Morrison and Vicky Foxcroft present the Bill. Laura Trott accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026 , and to be printed (Bill 300).