Laura Trott MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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).

• 21 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This is farcical. Will the Secretary of State finally admit that the original pledge to hire 6,500 teachers included primary school teachers, and that the Government are now abandoning their pledge? The reality is that, according to their own website, there are 400 fewer teachers than last year.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I completely support the Secretary of State’s opening words, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the devastating incident. Government documents state that the first step in achieving their primary school readiness mission is meeting their target of recruiting 6,500 teachers. The Secretary of State claimed at the last oral questions that she has always been clear that the 6,500 teachers are in secondary schools. If that is true, can she explain how secondary school teacher recruitment contributes to improving primary school readiness for four-year-olds?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Classroom Disruption: Smartphones · Hansard source

  More

  In the other place, Baroness Smith of Malvern, a Minister in the Department for Education, said: “There is no clear scientific consensus on a negative impact from screen time and social media use on the mental health and neurological or functional development of children and young people.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2025; Vol. 847, c. 55.] I fundamentally disagree. There is overwhelming and extensive evidence of the harm caused, so I want to know the Government’s position. Does the Minister agree with his ministerial colleague or with me on this issue?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Early Years Providers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this interesting and thought-provoking debate. It is nice to see a degree of unanimity across the Chamber about the importance of early years high-quality provision. Let me first deal with NICs, because that issue has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); the Lib Dem spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller); and the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). We know the impact that it is having on nursery settings up and down the country. It is not right that they are treated differently from the rest of the public sector, given that so much of their provision is entirely state-funded. The impact of the changes has been talked about in very clear terms in this debate. It has been described as “catastrophic” by the Early Years Alliance. We know that 52% of settings are likely to reduce the number of early entitlement places on offer, and that the changes will result in fees going up for parents. That is not what anybody here wants. I know that the Minister understands that, so in his bids to the Treasury for the upcoming Budget, will he ask—as I am sure he has already—that more relief is given to early years for the provision of NICs? One of the themes discussed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell)—in what I hope she does not mind me saying was a really excellent speech—and by the Lib Dem spokeswoman, was outreach to disadvantaged areas with the new offer. When we had the offer for two-year-olds, which was just limited by income, the take-up was not what we wanted. Now there is a wider offer, that outreach will be important. I hope that the Minister will speak to that. There is also a link between areas of disadvantage and children who are under the care of a social worker. What more will be done to make sure that social workers are aware of the provision in their local areas, and can direct families who may need it to that provision? That is very important. We know it may provide relief for the parents and a higher quality placement for the individual child. It would be very helpful if the Minister could come back on that today. I want to talk about school readiness, because I absolutely welcome the Government’s focus in that area, which is very important. As I mentioned in my response to the Education Secretary’s statement the other day, the target we have is for the end of reception. It is therefore not really measuring school readiness as such; it is measuring the work of brilliant reception teachers, up and down the country. That is not actually what we want to measure. We want to measure the things that the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman talked about: trying to get children ready to go to school. That would reduce the pressure on primary school teachers, rather than increase it. I am sure that the Government’s intention is not to increase it, but it is what will happen as a result of that target. We need to try to get those young people ready to learn and to go to school, because it makes such a difference to their ability to learn. I hope that the Minister will consider that as part of the school readiness work that he has going on at the moment. As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, I would like to talk more about screens in the context of school readiness. The Government have brought forward a partnership for a national year of reading, which I think we can all agree is very positive, but the one thing that is driving the decline in reading in this country is overuse of screens by young people. I know that the Education Committee has done some brilliant work on this issue. We have to make sure that parents know that too much screen time is just not good for their children. We know that 25% of three and four-year-olds have phones. That is that is not good for them. It is delaying speech development, reading and socialisation, and that is being compounded by the reception baseline assessment now being done on a screen, which implies that children need to be able to use a screen by the time they get to reception. A recent trip to a primary school alerted me to this. The reception teacher said, “I used to ask them whether they could split this orange apart or not, to be able to check their hand-eye co-ordination. Now it’s all done on a screen.” It is just wrong. If we want a change in school readiness—all Members present are interested in that; that is why we are at this debate—we need an increased focus on reducing screen use by young children, because parents too often just do not know that it is bad for their child. They are trying to do their best, and they think it is fantastic that they can give them a screen with some games on, but actually they are stopping them from being able to play. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest and others talked about the fact that play is crucial to early development, and we impede that by giving screens to children. This debate has been really interesting. There is a degree of unanimity on the direction that we need to go in. I hope that some progress can be made on funding for early years provision and that we can try to drive up the usage of the free offers in disadvantaged areas. We need to shift the focus on school readiness to what we need to help parents do to get their child ready for school. I hope that, together, we can shift the emphasis and try to get screens out of young people’s lives, because that is a single thing that we can do to help them with their mental health and their school readiness.

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

  More

  When the right hon. Lady was in opposition, she criticised every announcement simply because it came from the Conservatives. Take childcare: she called the hours model that she talked about today “broken”. She said that she would have a new childcare system, and that its creation would be “like the creation of the NHS.” Yet now, in government, she trumpets the childcare system that the Conservatives designed as one of her main achievements. The right hon. Lady once dismissed family hubs as a “poor imitation”, but after last week’s chaos, what is she turning to for the Government’s reset? Yes, the Conservatives’ family hubs plans. That is why I was surprised this weekend to hear her claims that this could only happen under Labour. The irony is that this programme was started under the Conservatives—we did not hear that today—and the expansion was not in the Labour manifesto; it was in the Conservative one. Her strategy document, published today, has even lifted the name of our “Best Start for Life” plan, published in 2021. Imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, for which I thank the right hon. Lady. Perhaps recent events have reminded her that Labour does not have a monopoly on good ideas—if indeed it has any good ideas at all. I will not take the right hon. Lady’s approach, which was opposition for opposition’s sake. I agree in principle with much of what is being proposed today, but as with free school meals and the children’s care cap, I will do my job and point out the gaps, raise concerns and expect proper answers. She might consider engaging with the questions this time, instead of falling back on a rant about the Conservatives, which frankly convinces no one and improves nothing. With that in mind, is this genuinely new money being announced today, or just a reannouncement of the family hubs money from the spending review? The right hon. Lady talks about £500 million of funding. Which financial years, and how many years, does that cover? Is the funding for new hubs only, or will it support existing ones, too? Will there be new capital funding for bricks and mortar provision? As the Secretary of State acknowledged, Sure Start had its limitations. It failed to effectively target support at those who needed it most. What is being done differently this time to avoid the same mistakes being made? When I visited a family hub in Dartford earlier this year, I was shocked to hear how many mothers were being referred to it because they faced domestic violence from their own children. These are children who have grown up witnessing abuse at home. What data is being collected through these hubs to track national tends like these, and how is that informing the Government’s response to the most pressing issues facing these families? I welcome the Government’s focus on school readiness. Children who lived through lockdown are arriving at school with speech delays and gaps in basic skills. This is one of covid’s longest shadows, but if we are serious about tackling it, we need to be honest about responsibility: what falls to parents and what falls to teachers? Teachers are stepping in where parents are not. They do it because they care, but it is not their job to potty-train, to brush teeth or to teach children to get dressed. Of course, children with SEND need tailored support—that is a different conversation entirely—but for most children, that support needs to start at home. The Government have set a target for school readiness, but it relates to the end of the school reception year. We need a target that actually reflects school readiness and what has happened at home, not the brilliant work of reception teachers. The right hon. Lady has said that her No. 1 priority was early years, but the rhetoric does not match the reality. Nurseries across the country are on the brink because of decisions her Government have made. While it is welcome that they have continued the roll-out of our early years offer, the lack of compensation for the national insurance contributions increase is forcing providers to either hike fees or shut their doors. It is no use giving out incentive payments for jobs at nurseries if providers are closing because they have been clobbered by NICs. Finally, I must raise the issue of SEND. This has been splashed across three national newspapers, and despite the off-the-record briefings from her Department, the right hon. Lady has failed to give parents any reassurance over the weekend. Parental anxiety is, as we all know, going through the roof, so I will give her one more opportunity. Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes? Right now, this is a Government devoid of ideas. A year in, they are defined by broken promises and U-turns. Parents need and deserve answers on what their Government are doing, and until they get them, they have every reason to doubt everything this Government have to say.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Smartphones in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State may dismiss banning smartphones in schools as a gimmick, but teachers, health professionals and parents are all calling for action to reduce children’s screen time. Every day we have new evidence of the harm that screens are doing, so why is the Education Secretary ignoring that and pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? Does she accept that that is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the confirmation that the Education Secretary does accept that primary school teachers are indeed teachers, but why is she then saying that they no longer count towards her manifesto pledge to recruit 6,500 more teachers? Is it because, contrary to the Department’s social media posts, teacher numbers are in fact going down, not up?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to welcome my old primary school teacher Mrs Case to the Chamber today—I hope we all remain on our best behaviour. My question is very simple: does the Education Secretary believe that primary school teachers are indeed teachers?

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous. It is astonishing that we have had to summon the Government to the House today, but the Minister cannot even tell us what pay rise teachers will get and whether it is going to be funded. That does not allow us to scrutinise the matter in this House. The Government said that they would tax private schools to fund 6,500 more teachers, but the reality is that state schools have not got any of that money. Instead, we have had broken promises on compensating schools for the jobs tax, confirmation from the Department for Education itself that there will be a shortfall in teacher pay funding, which we are not allowed to discuss here today in this urgent question, and uncertainty as to what the actual pay rise for teachers will be. That is a disgrace, and it is the opposite of what people who voted for Labour expected. All that is in the final two weeks when headteachers up and down the country have to decide whether to make teachers redundant in time for September—in fact, sadly, many schools will already have made the difficult decision to let good teachers go. These are job losses on the Minister’s watch, due to her inability to provide schools with the clarity that they need. Do not just take my word for it. Dan Moynihan, from the Harris Federation, says that it proposes to make 40 to 45 teachers redundant. Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which runs 90 state sector academies, said that the trust has been left with £10.5 million a year of unfunded costs. He said: “It’s no good Treasury waving their hands and saying ‘efficiency’—that would be 400 job losses. Sector wide, that would extrapolate to ruinous harm in the one well-functioning public service: tens of thousands of redundancies.” Simon Pink, the finance director at the Elliot Foundation, which has 36 primaries, said: “This is the toughest budget…in a generation.” One secondary school headteacher has already had to cut two teaching assistant posts and a teacher role due to rising national insurance and anticipated wage rises. What is the pay rise that the Government recommend for teachers? The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on 28 April: “There’ll be no additional funding for pay.” Yesterday, the Government started to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. Will the Minister now fully U-turn and fund the national insurance rise and agree to fully fund the pay increases, whatever they are?

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on whether the Government will be accepting the school teachers’ review body’s pay recommendation for 2025-26.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the Education Secretary’s best attempts to rewrite history, we Conservatives did not need a court to tell us that biological sex was real. She has on her desk the draft guidance for schools on gender questioning, and the final Cass report was published a year ago. If she is serious about protecting women and girls, why has she not published the guidance?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That draft guidance was produced a year and a half ago. The Education Secretary wants to talk about her record. Well, let me remind her that one of her first acts on coming into post was to pause implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which would have protected gender-critical voices. She is more concerned about listening to student union activists than to women. Will she apologise to the gender-critical women who were forced to spend eye-watering sums on legal fees to fight for their rights because of her actions?

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Not only has the Education Secretary introduced a Bill to this place that will destroy standards in English schools, but now she has broken her promises on national insurance contributions compensation and is leaving schools in an impossible funding situation. Every MP has heard from headteachers who are stressed beyond belief at how to manage their funding. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that worried headteachers up and down the country will not have to make teachers redundant because of her broken promises: yes or no?

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement, but let us be absolutely clear: the policies that she is talking about represent investment of £37 million, but the Government are taking away half a billion pounds from nurseries by failing to compensate them for the national insurance increase. That will have a catastrophic effect on nurseries up and down the country, which will be forced either to close or to put their prices up. “Catastrophic” is not my word, but that of the Early Years Alliance, following Labour’s national insurance bombshell on the childcare sector. In her statement, the Education Secretary said that she inherited a “pledge without a plan”—what a load of nonsense! It is our plan that is delivering the expansion of funded childcare this autumn, and our plan that she today confirmed has already halved costs for under-threes, according to independent research. That is our plan, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is her plan that is shutting nurseries up and down the country, and that will put up costs for parents. Just last week, I hosted a roundtable with some of the unsung heroes of the sector—nursery owners. Many were in tears, struggling with very real decisions about whether they can keep their doors open. One of the owners shared with me that she is stopping her own salary so that she can continue to pay her staff the amount they deserve. Another owner was having sleepless nights worrying about how she would provide proper care for the children now that she can no longer afford the staffing costs, thanks to this Government’s decisions. It is clearly absurd for the Government to ask the sector to absorb the increases in national insurance while keeping fees the same. The consequences of that are entirely predictable: nurseries will have to either close or put up their prices. A recent survey by the Early Years Alliance said that, sadly, around 400 nurseries that it spoke to may have to close because of this Government’s jobs tax. That is what the Education Secretary’s No. 1 priority looks like. Parents will lose out too. According to the National Day Nurseries Association, increases to national insurance contributions will force nurseries to raise their fees by 10%. Those are the obvious consequences of this Government’s decisions. Will the Education Secretary finally admit today how much the jobs tax is costing the childcare sector? Will she monitor the impact of closures that happen thanks to her jobs tax on childcare availability? On the specifics in her announcement today, will she confirm the locations of the school-based nurseries and how they were chosen? Were they chosen on the basis of surplus primary places or are they in areas where we need more childcare provision? If it is the latter, how were they identified? Those nurseries will be based in schools, so is it her intention that they will mimic the school timetable, or will there be year-round provision and will their hours be longer than the school day? Will school-based nurseries be compensated for the impact of the jobs tax? If so, what will she do to address the inequity that that will cause with other providers? As the Early Years Alliance has said today “if the government is truly serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, it must come to the realisation that increasing school-based provision can only ever be one piece of the puzzle. Failing to recognise this will simply mean that more families lose out.” It is right: under this Government, more families will lose out. While I welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement, the reality is that Labour’s decisions are making childcare more expensive and harder to find— [ Interruption. ] Hard-working families will bear the brunt of this Government’s failure. It is time for the Education Secretary to stop making broken promises and actually make early years her No. 1 priority.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important UQ. It is utterly extraordinary that we have had to summon the Government to the Chamber to provide clarity on whether they have axed a programme that ended yesterday—or so we thought—which supports 20,000 of our most vulnerable young people. The Government have been given lots of opportunities to clarify the funding situation. The Prime Minister was asked about it in the Chamber just last week. Either they did not know at that stage, or they just did not want to tell us—or, more importantly, the thousands of young people using the programme. Even by current Department for Education standards, this is utterly chaotic. I do welcome the decision today, but can the Minister tell us when it was made? She recognises the impact that it has had on children and families up and down the country, but that impact is the result of her decisions and her delay. Can she please explain to us why this has happened and why the Government could not confirm the future of a £50,000-a-year programme sooner?