Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right to say that because only children with EHCPs will be exempt from the VAT charge, there will be the unintended consequence of adding yet further pressure to what is already a broken system. Indeed, a parent in my constituency has written to me along those lines to say that they now feel that they will have to go through the application process. So many parents and carers are forced to navigate a postcode lottery and wait months, as my hon. Friend said, to get the support that their children are entitled to.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I think many of us—certainly on this side of the House—would recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, and many have already made it. I suspect that quite a few people on the Government Benches would also recognise that this policy will be a real challenge, because Members from all parts of this House have been turning out in vast numbers at any debate on special educational needs to discuss the major crisis in our state school provision for SEND pupils. The system is broken, and it will have further pressures still. I come back to the point I was making on partnership working. The sort of exemplary work I was talking about benefits children in the state and independent sectors, and we want to see it become the norm in every part of the country. I fear that it will be one of the first things to suffer when schools are forced to make cutbacks under the Government’s policy. Let us remember that most independent schools are no Eton or Winchester; 40% of them have fewer than 100 pupils. Those small schools, often in rural places, will struggle to absorb this extra cost.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I would not dare to second-guess your position on this issue. The best way to deal with this issue is to drop the policy entirely, but if we are to exempt children with special educational needs, a good place to start is the SEND register. Just yesterday, I was discussing with one of the headteachers in my constituency the number of children on their SEND register and how they go about identifying them. Schools already do that in the state sector to support children. We could apply those same rules and regulations in the private sector, and those children should be exempted. However, I would rather this policy was just dropped altogether. For all these reasons, the Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption for independent schools. Instead, we want to see a better partnership between independent schools and local state schools. Many already do that, and I am not just talking about a few bursaries here and free use of a pool there; I am talking about genuine partnership working and the sort of brilliant collaboration that I have seen in schools in my constituency, where Hampton school and Lady Eleanor Holles school share staff time with Reach academy in Feltham. They have also been mentoring and coaching pupils for medical school and other university places, and the results have been phenomenal in a disadvantaged part of west London, where typically students were not going on to further or higher education. That partnership has borne immense fruit for those young disadvantaged people.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Mr Speaker. I was just coming on to the last paragraph of my speech, but I wanted to take some interventions from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  May I just finish by urging Ministers to look, instead of a damaging and counterproductive tax on education, at ways to get independent schools to do more of that great partnership work with state schools and their communities and to ensure they are investing in that local community? Let us ensure that every child, no matter their background or circumstances, is given the support and opportunities they need to thrive. Let us support investment in our education, not penalise it.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I would rather the Government do not go through with this policy at all and drop it, but if they insist on pressing ahead with it, all children with special educational needs, whether or not they are on the SEND register—they can be identified in other ways—should be exempted. I will share a story from a constituent who contacted me recently. They have two children, both of whom have complex learning needs and have struggled to thrive in their local state school. After moving to a private school that was better able to support them, they are finally making progress and most importantly, to quote the parent, they “don’t feel like they are failing”. The children’s family has made huge financial sacrifices to give them this education, including remortgaging their home and cashing in pension plans. As this policy is set to be introduced in the middle of the school year, this family and thousands of others have little time to prepare or save. It will be disruptive for children who have already suffered enough disruption to their education in recent years. This parent who contacted me told me: “We are terrified of the prospect of having to uproot our children for a second time because we can’t see a way to afford this rise.” Labour’s rushed-through and ill thought-through plans will snatch opportunities away from thousands of children just like my constituents.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Education Secretary was suggesting to the Minister that that is where he could find some money— [ Interruption. ]

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we have a Treasury Minister rather than an Education Minister opening the debate for the Government, I say gently that he should look at what the Liberal Democrats proposed on reforming capital gains tax as a way to fund some of the important investment that we need in education, rather than looking at taxing parents’ choices to invest in their children’s education. The Government’s policy would undermine two important principles. First, education should simply not be taxed. As we have heard, all education provided by an eligible body, including university education, music lessons, and tutoring are exempt from VAT, and VAT should not be imposed on any of those things because education is fundamentally a public good. Secondly, parents have the right to choose what education setting is best for their child. As Liberals we have always championed choice, and believe that nothing should get in the way of those important choices. Of course we want to get to a point where every parent can choose a local state school that meets their child’s needs and gives them the best possible start in life, and opportunities to flourish. But let us be honest with ourselves: that is not the reality facing many parents today, especially when their children have special educational needs. Liberal Democrats have many times raised the crisis in SEND provision. Conservative cuts to school and council budgets mean that many parents and carers simply cannot get their children the support they deserve. The Minister talked a moment ago about sorting out state-school SEND provision, so that no parent with a child with SEND would need to send their child to a private school, but does he recognise that in order to sort out and fix our broken SEND system we will need not millions but billions of pounds? I am not entirely sure that the Chancellor will be giving that kind of money to the Department for Education.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I point out for a start that when the Liberal Democrats were in government, school budgets increased in real terms, and we introduced the pupil premium to help the most disadvantaged children. When the Tories were left to their own devices, they slashed budgets, and the pupil premium has been devalued over the years.

• 7 Oct 2024 · NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  Lord Darzi’s report was utterly damning about the treatment of children in our health system. He said that too many children were being let down, and pointed out that they account for 24% of the population, but only 11% of NHS expenditure, and that over 100,000 children wait for over a year to be assessed for mental health treatment. He said we must do better, so will the Secretary of State commit to putting children front and centre of the 10-year plan, and to making them a priority, because for a decade, the Tories let our children down?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Disadvantaged pupils between 16 and 19 are likely to be up to four grades behind their more affluent peers. We know that funding drops by about a third at 16, yet 16-to-19 tuition was axed in July, and the pupil premium has never applied to that age group. If the Secretary of State is serious about smashing the glass ceiling, will she consider increasing funding targeted at this group?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Teacher Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  The new Government’s focus on the serious recruitment and retention crisis is welcome. However, as we have heard, the recent pay announcement overlooked teachers who work in colleges, who already face a pay gap of more than £9,000. We have twice the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in our colleges as in school sixth forms, so the recruitment issue is even more pressing in our colleges. Why is it that teachers of 16-year-olds in schools deserve a pay rise, but teachers of 16-year-olds in colleges do not?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  One Air is a small and growing cargo airline based in my constituency, which is having to deal with huge amounts of additional red tape and costs as a result of the Brexit deal and the end of reciprocal arrangements with the EU. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, when Ministers negotiate mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the aviation sector will be included?

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure I have the time; I am so sorry. The national body for SEND would also act as a champion for every child with special needs or disabilities and promote widespread inclusive practice. Additionally, Liberal Democrats would like to see councils funded to reduce the amount that schools pay towards the cost of a child’s education, health and care plan. The current £6,000 threshold acts as a disincentive in the system, which can hinder schools from identifying and establishing a need before it impacts the child’s schooling. We cannot wait for things to go wrong before we fix them. As the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, early intervention is key. That is why, as we have heard from many Labour Members, boosting training for teachers and for early years practitioners, so that we can identify needs early and support early, is so crucial. Behind every statistic and case study we have heard about today, there is a child who is struggling, with parents and carers who are under stress. We have a duty to act. Liberal Democrats believe that every child, no matter their needs and background, deserves the opportunity to thrive. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and to working with the Education Secretary to fix our broken SEND system. The children deserve it.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and pay tribute to him for securing this incredibly important debate. The fact that it is such a packed Chamber—standing room only—is testament to both the passion with which he set out his case and the stories that we have heard. We have so many new Members, but those of us who have served one, two, three or more terms know that inboxes and postbags are bulging with stories and heartbreaking cases across the country. In the time available, and given the number who wish to speak, I will not do the customary paying of tribute to the various speeches, but I may refer to various contributions as I go. I would particularly like to recognise those new Members who were formerly teachers. It is so good to have more teachers in the House and it is important that we hear their voice. I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) for paying particular tribute to the hard work of staff up and down the country who have to battle in this system alongside parents and pupils. As we have heard, too many vulnerable children who should be receiving crucial support to learn, play and thrive are being let down by a system that is broken. According to the latest Government data, more than 1.6 million children in England have a special educational need—that is almost one in five of our pupils. We have heard of the huge growth in the level of demand in the past few years, with the number of pupils with an education, health and care plan growing by almost 12% in the past year alone. More than half a million children are now on EHCPs. Despite the best efforts and dedication of everyone involved in the sector, including teachers, parents and charities, it is clear that services are struggling to keep up with demand. As a result, too many children with SEND are being left behind. The new Government have an immense challenge on their hands and, for all their rhetoric, education was not a priority for the previous Conservative Government once they were left to their own devices from 2015 onwards. I have no doubt that the shadow Minister today will point to a plethora of announcements on SEND and promises to build special schools in response to the overwhelming and growing need. Actions sadly never met the rhetoric. The evidence is crystal clear, as has been backed up by the stories we have heard from across the House today: we know that parents and children are stuck in an adversarial system, fighting, and waiting many months—sometimes even years— to get the support to which their children are entitled. The previous Government’s own SEND review in 2022 stated that the system was “failing to deliver for children, young people and their families.” As we have heard, the former Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan, even described it as “lose, lose, lose”. We also know that headteachers are at their wits’ end, with teachers and teaching assistants being driven out of the classroom because of the strain on them. Last year, on a visit to Harrogate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and I met the SENCO for Coppice Valley primary school, who was leaving because he felt he could not meet the needs of his pupils and provide the support that they deserved. In my own constituency, I have heard about serious safeguarding incidents in schools involving children with SEND who are not getting the support that they desperately need and deserve. It is unfair not only on those particular children, but on the whole class, and it is unfair on the teaching staff who are doing their very best to provide a good education for all. With school budgets so stretched, I know that many schools are struggling to offer the inclusive education they want to. Many are laying off teaching assistants to deliver the cost savings they need, and it is often those teaching assistants who are providing the support for a child with special educational needs to remain in a mainstream classroom. At the same time, local authorities cannot possibly plug the funding gaps from their own budgets, given the parlous state of council finances.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I agree that, where possible, we need to be as inclusive as possible. Equally, there are children whose needs cannot be met in a mainstream setting and we need to have special provision for them—I will touch on that in a moment. The funding for special needs has fallen so far short of what is needed that local authorities across the country now have a cumulative high needs deficit of approximately £3.15 billion. Many local authorities’ financial viability is being put at risk by these growing deficits. Although the safety valve programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) mentioned, of which my own borough of Richmond upon Thames was an early member, has provided some relief, it is a sticking-plaster solution, kicking the can down the road. Once the agreements run out, those local authorities are projected to start racking up big deficits again. As well as the cost of providing the support to which children are legally and morally entitled, councils are also seeing their SEND transport bills skyrocket. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) pointed out in the case from her constituency, we know that the number of children having to make long journeys has increased by almost a quarter over the past five years. Vulnerable children are having to travel ever further distances because specialist provision is not available locally for many. Two thirds of all special schools are full or over capacity. The last Government was incredibly slow in building the special schools that they promised, and they turned down many applications from councils to build and open their own SEND schools to make that provision available. Councils face a double whammy: not only are they paying transportation costs, but they are having to buy in private provision. Many independent SEND schools are brilliant not-for-profit charities, but there is also obscene profiteering from some special schools run by private equity firms, which are bleeding councils up and down the country dry. I hope the Labour Government will look at that because my calls to the Conservative Government fell on deaf ears. I want to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) about the many families whose children are not eligible for EHCPs or who cannot face the gauntlet of trying to secure one. They turn to mainstream, small independent schools to better support their child because larger mainstream schools cannot support that need, but those families will be penalised by the new Government’s plan to slap VAT on independent school fees from January. Those who will not be able to afford the additional cost will turn to the state sector, putting more pressure on, as we have heard, a system in crisis. Furthermore, the proposal to have a VAT exemption for those with EHCPs will incentivise even more parents to apply through the system. I have heard from a constituent just this week who will probably have to do that, which will put yet more pressure on a system that cannot cope with more. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the 100,000 children who have SEND and are in the independent sector. All of us recognise that SEND provision is an enormous challenge that will not be resolved overnight despite what the Secretary of State hopes to be able to do. I stand ready to support her in any way I can to make sure that we tackle the issue. The recent Liberal Democrat manifesto set out several ideas that I hope the Minister will look at. First we propose that a new national body be established for SEND that would be responsible for funding the support of children with very high needs. The national body for SEND would pay for any costs above £25,000 for children with high needs. It would reduce risk for local authorities and help to tackle the postcode lottery that we have heard about.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Ofsted · Hansard source

  More

  The death of Ruth Perry was a tragedy and underscored the high-stakes nature of Ofsted inspections. I have witnessed at first hand how headteachers and teachers in my constituency have suffered under the strain and stress of Ofsted inspections, but others have also told me how helpful they have found them and how brilliant Ofsted inspectors have been. We Liberal Democrats certainly welcome the move away from one-word judgments, which we have long been calling for. At the same time, we believe that a robust and fair inspection and accountability regime is essential to ensure that schools are operating at a high standard and are safe, nurturing and inclusive environments in which our children and young people can thrive. Although the change is a welcome first step, could we have some reassurances that it will be followed by proper root-and-branch reform? For too long, Ofsted has been seen as an adversary, but it should be seen as a helpful friend. Can we see the announcement as a first step towards a world where Ofsted is a helpful, respected partner for schools? Perhaps the regional improvement teams will provide that—I sense that local authorities used to do so before they had that function taken away from them. Finally, Ofsted should be looking at a broad, varied and rich curriculum. How will the Minister’s curriculum review connect with the Ofsted changes?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  When the Secretary of State looks at the rules around local authority compulsory purchase orders, and at removing hope value for house building purposes, will she look at having the same rules for playing fields that local authorities want to keep as playing fields and not build on? That would allow sites such as Udney park playing field in my constituency, which has lain derelict for a decade under private ownership, to be brought into community use again.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Next month, the community in Twickenham will once again remember Amelie Delagrange, the French student who, many Members will remember, was brutally murdered on Twickenham Green some 20 years ago. Sadly, so little has changed since then. In a local survey by Richmond and Kingston youth council, 69% of boys said that they would not intervene, or would be unsure about intervening, if they witnessed friends sexually harassing someone. May I reiterate calls from both sides of the House for work with the Department for Education to make sure that boys, as well as girls, learn what is and is not acceptable?

• 26 Jul 2024 · Pharmacy Provision: Hampton · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I completely agree with him. We want doctors to use community pharmacy more to alleviate the pressure on other parts of the health service, but frankly, if the pharmacies are not there, the remaining ones will be overwhelmed. I talked to local GPs in the Hampton area following these closures, and they were desperate to see more provision. They thought about trying to set up their own community pharmacy provision, but they just could not make the numbers add up because of the funding shortfall. The Company Chemists’ Association estimates an average funding shortfall of £67,000 per pharmacy. That is based on an analysis of data published by the Department of Health and Social Care in a written parliamentary answer at the beginning of last year. Many pharmacists are left out of pocket, as they are reimbursed less for a number of medications than the price they pay, and there are stories of some using credit cards and overdrafts to purchase medication. These funding pressures are coupled with major workforce challenges. When I met Boots following the news that it is closing two branches in Hampton, it cited a lack of pharmacists as a major reason for closing some 300 pharmacies across the UK, although commercial pressures were clearly the main driver. Layered on top of these issues are regular medicine supply shortages, which add more work and create more stress for already overstretched pharmacists. Community Pharmacy England reported last year that 92% of pharmacies were having to manage supply issues daily. It is a perfect storm for community pharmacy at a time when we need preventive healthcare and self-care more than ever. The potential of community pharmacies to improve patient health and reduce the pressure on NHS hospitals and GPs is immense, yet they are closing in their hundreds every year. We should be relying on pharmacies even more to keep the nation healthy. The previous Conservative Government’s announcement of the Pharmacy First initiative was very welcome in its ambition, but if pharmacies are not even funded for the basics right now, with big gaps in provision opening up all over the country, it is hard to see how Pharmacy First’s ambitions will be achieved. The Liberal Democrats would like to see the Government building on the Pharmacy First principle and giving pharmacists more prescribing rights and public health responsibilities. As in so many areas of public health, the “invest to save” argument is compelling, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on what the new Labour Government will do on funding to enable community pharmacy to not just survive, but thrive and grow as an essential part of our primary care infrastructure. Having addressed the causes of these closures, I will spend some time exploring the processes involved in local communities being informed of pharmacy closures, and their input, or lack thereof, in them, as well as discussing the complete lack of transparency or accountability in relation to applications for new pharmacy licences. For starters, only those organisations designated as “interested parties” in the regulations are informed of new applications, and only their feedback has to be taken into account. Anyone else who is interested, such as me as a local MP, needs to make a freedom of information request, unless someone in the local health community passes on the information. My views, and the views of other people in the community, can be ignored. To describe the bureaucratic process that sits around new applications as byzantine would be generous. I hope the Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker and other hon. Members will bear with me while I try to explain what happened in Hampton. We are part of the South West London Integrated Care Board, but NHS England has delegated the pharmacy market entry function for the whole of London to the North East London ICB, which is on completely the opposite side of the city. Officials have no local knowledge of our area, no understanding of local transport links and no relationships with the local health system. Let me start with the closures. The Minister will be aware of the statutory three-month notice period for pharmacy closures; last August, Boots would have had to give NHS England three months’ notice of its intentions in Hampton. That information was not passed by NHSE to the Richmond health and wellbeing board. I find that utterly staggering. The first that local councillors, the local health community in the area and I as the MP knew about the planned closures was when Boots placed signs in its windows to inform customers, and concerned constituents started to contact me about the likely impact of the closures. At the end of August 2023, while this was going on and we were all in the dark, the local health and wellbeing board published a pharmaceutical needs assessment, but it was inaccurate and failed to identify an imminent future gap in need in the Hampton North area because it had not been notified of the closures. The Tangley Park Boots subsequently closed in late October. The Priory Road Boots, which was directly opposite a busy GP surgery, closed in early November. In November, an application was received for a new independent pharmacy licence on the Tangley Park Boots site. Once again, the local health and wellbeing board was not notified of the application—this time, for two whole months. During this period of complete silence, the health and wellbeing board issued a supplementary statement to the local pharmaceutical needs assessment, which identified the gap in Hampton. However, because the application for a new pharmacy was made in November, and it referred to the original needs assessment that was made before the supplementary statement was published, it was rejected, even though the application itself identified the gap, which was officially made clear in the supplementary statement subsequently published in December. Not only that, but it took the North East London ICB a full eight months to issue the rejection; tht happened earlier this month, even though the decision used evidence received in December to justify the rejection. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you and other hon. Members are still managing to follow this sorry story, I hope you will agree that this decision is utterly perverse. It is also utterly unreasonable that timely applications to open pharmacies in response to multiple closures should be inherently prevented in this way. The delays in sharing information with the local health and wellbeing board and the delays in decision making are unforgivable. During the lengthy delay, the local authority received a planning application to change the Tangley Park pharmacy site into a fast food outlet. Thankfully, that was rejected earlier this month after representations from the public health team and councillors, but I am sure the public health Minister will agree that it would be unfortunate, to put it mildly, if a pharmacy were replaced with a fast food outlet. One local official told me yesterday that the systems architecture is too complicated, and that there is a need for clearer responsibilities and accountability. Amen to that, I say. Healthwatch Richmond has demanded answers from the North East London ICB, but it has received a frankly woeful response that does not address the substantive question of why the application was so badly handled. The response passes the buck and blames regulations. To be clear, Healthwatch and I are not qualified to comment on the merits of an application; what we are doing is challenging the unfathomable process. I say to the Minister that the huge funding challenges facing community pharmacy are pressing. I appreciate that they may be extremely difficult for him to address, given that the Chancellor has an iron fist as far as any additional public spending is concerned, but the Minister must wage a campaign to improve the funding situation. It makes financial sense. We will not grow the economy without improving the nation’s health. In that campaign, he will have cross-party support from Members on the Opposition Benches. Revisiting the regulations and how NHS England is implementing them will cost next to nothing. There should be proper consultation with and involvement from the local community on closure notices, and changes in the process for new licences could ensure that we can quickly plug pharmacy gaps when they open up in areas such as Hampton. Crucially, those powers need to be delegated to the local ICB, with full involvement from the local health and wellbeing board. They know their communities and their geography best—trust them. Finally, if the Minister could step in on the specific issues in my constituency—the application that has been rejected and is going NHS Resolution on appeal—simply to ensure a common-sense approach, the residents of Hampton North and I would be very grateful. We desperately need a new pharmacy for our community. I look forward to his response.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Pharmacy Provision: Hampton · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election? It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment. We have worked closely together in recent years in the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, so I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job. I suspect that young Lyle is very proud of his granddad right now. I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. You might be surprised to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is the first I have managed to secure since my election in 2019, so I want to use this exciting opportunity to bring to the Minister’s attention the impact of pharmacy closures on the local community in the Hampton area of my constituency, as well as the immense financial challenges facing community pharmacy right across England. I will also raise concerns about the impenetrable bureaucratic processes, which need overhauling, in new pharmacy licence applications and pharmacy closures. Let me set the scene. Last autumn, two Boots pharmacies in the Hampton area were closed. One of those pharmacies was in the Hampton North ward, one of three wards of relative deprivation in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. The west of the ward is within the 20% most deprived areas of the country; it is densely populated with a significant amount of social housing. As a result of that closure in Tangley Park, the entire ward is now without a community pharmacy. Hampton North is poorly served by public transport: there is no station, and the two bus routes serving the area are notoriously unreliable. The nearest pharmacy is now a mile away on foot, a distance that is difficult to cover for the elderly and those with mobility issues. It is certainly more than a 20-minute walk away, which is the measure that previous Ministers liked to use to highlight pharmacy accessibility. Predictably, those closures have put a lot of pressure on the nearest remaining pharmacies, which face queues and stock issues. Again, that is not exactly convenient or practical for elderly and vulnerable patients. At this point, I pay tribute to Mike Derry and Healthwatch Richmond for their brilliant work championing local patients and giving them a voice. Healthwatch undertook a survey of some 700 residents in the Hampton area at the start of the year to demonstrate the impact of the closures. One person said: “I have gone without medication as I can’t stand very long. There are queues—I have waited over half an hour.” Healthwatch England highlighted the plight of 87-year-old Gill. She used to just about be able to get across the road from her house to the Tangley Park pharmacy. Now the nearest pharmacy is over a mile away, and Gill, who does not drive, cannot access that service because of the distance that she would have to walk to get there. She even paid the nearest pharmacy to deliver her medicines to her home each month, but in the eight months since she purchased the delivery service, it has shown up only twice. Her carer has to travel to collect the medication in person for her. Hampton is not unusual in losing pharmacy provision. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the crisis facing the community pharmacy sector. Data from the Community Chemists’ Association shows that there has been a net loss of over 1,200 pharmacies—1402 closures and only 179 openings—since 2015. More than a third of those losses have been in the most deprived areas of the country. The National Pharmacy Association reports that the number of pharmacies that have closed so far this calendar year—the equivalent of 10 pharmacies a week—is nearly 50% higher compared with the same point in 2023. As well as independent pharmacies, big chains such as Lloyds Pharmacy and Boots have significantly accelerated closure numbers over the past 18 months. A big driver of these closures is a significant real-terms reduction in funding for pharmacy; that funding has dropped by around 30% since 2015.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Pharmacy Provision: Hampton · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about the 20-minute walk and the four in five statistic, does the Minister recognise that a 20-minute walk for me or him is actually much longer for an elderly person or somebody with multiple health conditions or mobility issues? We have to work out what measure we are using. Yes, the Twickenham constituency may have many pharmacies, but we must look at that highly localised level. That is why we need the local authority and local health boards to be involved, because actually in Hampton, as a community, the transport links are terrible.

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I hear repeatedly that there are areas across the country where schools are full and parents are wondering where on earth they will be able to send their children to school. It is simply not true that it is just the ultra-wealthy who send their kids to private school. I am particularly concerned about those parents who, for whatever reason, feel that the local state school is not best suited to their child’s needs. That particularly applies to the 100,000 children in the independent sector with special educational needs who do not qualify for an education, health and care plan and will not be exempted under the Government’s proposed policy. I have heard too often from parents, on the doorstep and in my inbox, “I really want to send my child to the local state school, and we tried it, but it just couldn’t meet my child’s needs, so we are now making all sorts of sacrifices to send them to a much smaller, more pastoral independent school, where they have been transformed.” It is those families, who will be penalised under this policy, that I am particularly worried about. The vast majority of independent schools are small, with fewer than 400 pupils, and a number will struggle to survive as parents are priced out, putting pressure on state schools, as we have heard. Today’s debate is focused on education and opportunity. As Liberal Democrats, we recognise that education is the ultimate creator of opportunity and empowers every person to build a better future for themselves and contribute to our economy and society, yet our young people have been let down for far too long. I desperately hope that, with a new Government, that will change, and I look forward to working constructively with them wherever possible on meaningful action to ensure that it does.

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  May I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a pleasure to see you. I also warmly welcome the Education Secretary and all her Ministers to their posts. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, they absolutely have the best jobs in Government. I am very jealous indeed, but I am looking forward to working with them constructively over the course of this Parliament to deliver the best possible start for children and young people. I am delighted to be speaking today on behalf of the third party in the House from the vastly expanded Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful for the Government making time today for a dedicated debate on education and opportunity. Over the past few years, children and young people’s education has frankly been sidelined in the political agenda. It was no surprise to me that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition did not seek to allocate specific time for this area during the King’s Speech debates, instead bundling all public services, welfare and the economy into a single evening’s debate. Today’s debate is therefore very welcome indeed. Education is the greatest investment that we can make to ensure that every child, no matter their background, has the opportunity to flourish to their full potential. As a result, it is also the greatest investment that we can make for our economy and our society. The King’s Speech and Government announcements in the past three weeks have included some encouraging measures that the Liberal Democrats welcome. On that note, I very much welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement on the level 3 qualifications review. The Liberal Democrats have long been saying that BTecs should not be funded until T-levels have properly bedded in. Actually, T-levels are squeezing so many young people out of the system and leaving them without options that we need a good range of options, so the review is very welcome. I also welcome the curriculum review that she announced. The devil, of course, in all the announcements so far will be in the detail. I hope that Ministers will work collaboratively, cross-party, on the areas where we are in agreement, though there are areas where we are not in agreement. One area where we are in violent agreement is the state in which the Conservative Government left our schools and colleges. Shortly before the election, I spoke to a school governor in my constituency who told me that their school is at rock bottom. Their school budget has been so squeezed that they are reliant on Amazon wish lists from which parents are asked to provide basic essentials such as whiteboard pens and glue sticks. That has become the reality for so many schools up and down the country. Not only are schools struggling to afford basic supplies, but they lack the resources to maintain their buildings. It is now well documented that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Chancellor, repeatedly refused to fund the investment in school buildings that the Department for Education made clear was needed. The result? Children are being taught in classrooms with leaky windows, broken heating and crumbling concrete. Where even to start with special educational needs? We heard about this issue from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I suspect that every Member across this House, new and returning, has a bulging inbox of SEND casework. The system is in crisis. Local authorities are stretched to the limit and our most vulnerable children are struggling, with their parents stuck in an adversarial system, fighting day in and day out to ensure that their children can get an education and the support that they deserve to thrive. Inadequate support for SEND children in mainstream schools, coupled with a lack of specialist provision, means that too many children are languishing at home without proper access to education, or travelling huge distances at great cost to overstretched local authorities because there just is not enough local provision. The lack of provision is having an impact on not only our pupils but our teachers. Many are being driven out of the profession because of the pressures that they face. They often tell me that they are acting as the fourth emergency service, because all the support services outside our schools are crumbling. Not enough new teachers are entering our classrooms, despite the figures that the shadow Secretary of State gave. The previous Conservative Government missed their own secondary schoolteacher training targets for 10 out of 11 years. That means not only that many children are not being taught by a specialist in their subject but that existing teachers are having to take on inordinate workloads due to the lack of staff. A study conducted this year found that 86% of teachers believe that their job has negatively impacted their mental health, with an increased workload being the main cause of stress. Over the past nine years, the Conservatives neglected our education system, and our children and young people are now paying the price. For the sake of our future generations, we must prioritise fixing it. [ Interruption. ] I will mention the coalition shortly, just to cheer up the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). The Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement in the King’s Speech of a children’s wellbeing Bill. We have long argued that wellbeing should be at the heart of our policymaking for children and young people. Hungry children struggling with their mental health will not be able to achieve their potential, either academically or socially. We know that poverty and mental ill health are significant contributors to the staggering numbers of children missing from school. We welcome the long-awaited introduction of the children-not-in-school register, a measure that has had cross-party support for several years and featured in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. This is particularly important given that last autumn term there were 33,000 children missing from education, with vulnerable children slipping under the radar. The change is long overdue, and I hope that the Government implement it without delay. That register is very important for safeguarding, but we must address the underlying causes of school absence. We have seen an explosion of mental ill health among children and young people in recent years. It is estimated that one in five children have a probable mental health disorder—that is six in every classroom. A lack of available mental health support means that many children are left languishing at home, missing out on key learning time. It also has much more serious consequences. The day after the election was called, I spoke to a local secondary headteacher in my constituency; several children in recent months had ended up in A&E after attempted suicide. A broken mother, whose teenage daughter had tragically been successful in taking her own life earlier this year, approached me in a local park and spoke to me about how local services had let her daughter down. Prevention is better than cure. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a mental health practitioner in every secondary school, but we must start at a younger age. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for the introduction of mental health practitioners in every primary and secondary school. I recognise the mental health support teams introduced by the previous Government, but they are shared across far too many schools. The average primary school gets half a day a week, and the average secondary school gets maybe one or two days a week. Those schools need full-time dedicated support, given the level of need in schools. We know that 50% of all lifetime mental health disorders develop by the age of 14. Putting mental health practitioners in every primary school would allow us to address those issues before they become permanent, ultimately saving our health services money in the long term. Another underlying cause of absence from school, and pressure on school staff, is the growing number of children living in poverty. It is disappointing that the Government continue to refuse to lift the two-child cap on benefits. The Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign for that cruel policy to be removed, which would immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty. Children up and down the country cannot afford to eat, with some children being forced to pretend to eat out of empty lunchboxes, or reportedly even eating rubbers out of desperation. In a country as wealthy as ours, no child should be going hungry at school. That is why I am immensely proud that it was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced free school meals for every infant schoolchild. [ Interruption. ] It was a Liberal Democrat policy that we had to fight for in Government. The benefits of free school meals are immense. They save parents time and money, help children to eat more healthily, and have even been proven to boost educational outcomes. Although Labour has proposed free breakfast clubs for children in primary school, which will be beneficial, often the children most in need are those living very far from school in temporary accommodation, who have extremely long journeys and simply cannot get to school in time for breakfast. Free school meals guarantee that those children have access to a hot, healthy meal in the middle of each school day to give them the energy that they need to learn. Most importantly, hunger does not stop at the age of 11. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, an estimated 900,000 children in poverty miss out on free school meals, and many of them are in secondary school. That is why the Liberal Democrats are committed to rolling out free school meals to every child in poverty, whether they are primary or secondary school age, in line with Henry Dimbleby’s recommendations to the previous Conservative Government, which they completely ignored. Sadly, research shows that the inequalities within our education system are deepening. As we have heard, according to data published by the Education Policy Institute just last week, by the time students from a disadvantaged background leave secondary school they are 19.2 months behind their peers. That is the highest attainment gap in over 10 years. Established by the Liberal Democrats in Government, the pupil premium was once a vital fund to support disadvantaged children. Unfortunately, we have seen that value erode by some 14% in real terms since the Tories were left to their own devices in 2015. One proven method to tackle the attainment gap is tutoring in small groups and one to one. In fact, research conducted by the Education Endowment Foundation shows that over the course of a year an average four months of additional progress is made because of tutoring. Although flawed in its delivery, the national tutoring programme, which was introduced during covid, and the 16 to 19 tuition fund had a transformational impact for many pupils. Talking about his experience of tutoring, Aiden from London South East Colleges said that he was aiming only for a 4 the third time he retook his English GCSE—he just wanted to get it over and done with—but he now has a 6, and it is all thanks to his tutor. He is going on to do higher-level qualifications, and he hopes to go to university and become a paramedic. It was not just Aiden whose grades improved; there were 62,000 additional passes in GCSE English and maths over the two years that Government-funded tutoring was in existence. Sadly, at the last Budget, the Conservative Government refused to continue funding for the national tutoring programme or the 16 to 19 tuition fund. The funding runs out today, pretty much, because it is the end of the academic year. Given the new Secretary of State’s stated commitment to extending opportunity to all and narrowing the attainment gap, will she look at the programme urgently and ensure that tutoring funding continues?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  I am not right honourable just yet, but I give way to my hon. Friend.