Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value, and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land. Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country. We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it. The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body. Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis: “Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.” –– [ Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.] I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value. Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government “are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.” The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome. The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development. It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely. Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation. I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time. New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good. This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer. I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year. The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a “huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.” I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised. I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate; she and I are both passionate about this issue, and I know she cares about it deeply. I will start by reminding colleagues—as many have done already—about who the children we are talking about are. These are children who have experienced the kind of trauma that none of us should ever have to experience in our life. After I first brought up the adoption and special guardianship support fund with the Prime Minister in March, a lady from Lincolnshire wrote to me. She is a special guardian for a child who witnessed her mother being murdered by her father at the age of two. For some reason that child does not qualify for child and adolescent mental health support, and has been able to access only a limited amount of counselling. That is the sort of child the ASGSF is for. These are also children who have been abused and neglected. When I spoke to the Purple Elephant Project, a therapy provider in Twickenham, its chief executive officer Jenny, who has worked with adopted children for many years, spoke to me about children she had worked with who had been made to sleep in the garden, or who had ingested heroin. Those are the sorts of experiences these children have been through. They need our collective help and support to overcome that trauma, as do the amazing people who step up to care for them, whether through adoption or often as kinship carers overnight. As one adoptive parent in my constituency said to me, these children deserve “the absolute best second chance in life.” I implore the Minister, who has a professional background in this area and cares about this issue deeply, to please listen to the pleas from those on all Benches about the support that is desperately needed. Before I talk in a bit more detail about the ASGSF, let me say a couple of words on kinship carers, given that I have been proud to campaign alongside my party for kinship carers for a number of years. I welcome the limited progress we have seen under this Government and the previous one on support and recognition of kinship carers, but as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, we have to go much further. We have to roll out allowances on a par with those for foster carers across the country to all kinship carers, extend employment leave to kinship carers and ensure that children in kinship care are given the support that they need in education through pupil premium plus and priority school admission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said in a recent debate, adoptive parents make a “lifelong commitment” to children. We heard from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who has also adopted, that the state needs to give them a lot more support. One constituent said to me that the ASGSF is the only post-adoption support there is for these children. That brings me to the ASGSF. I cannot begin to describe my anger and dismay at what has happened. I will try to contain that emotion as I speak. The stories that have been sent to me, and that I have heard face to face as I have been working on this issue in recent weeks and months, have on a number of occasions moved me to tears. These families faced months of uncertainty. The Minister had to answer a litany of written questions and letters from Members from all parties on whether the ASGSF would continue for this financial year. Those Members were stonewalled. I have explained the trauma that these children have experienced. They have had a huge amount of uncertainty and instability in their lives, and the Government added to it. We were all stonewalled. It took me dragging the Minister kicking and screaming to the House of Commons Chamber to answer an urgent question the day after the fund expired for her finally to commit to renewing it for this financial year. There was a sigh of relief among carers, adoptive parents, kinship carers and charities across the sector that the uncertainty had ended, despite the backlog that had built up in the meantime and the interruption in therapy for so many children who had had to stop therapy because they had run out of money from last year’s fund. However, there was no hint from the Minister during her response to my urgent question of the cuts that were to come. Instead, the Government waited until the depths of the Easter recess to sneak out a private letter to local authorities and charities about the 40% cut to grants, the removal of the assessment grant and the scrapping of the match funding. An adoptive mother I met at the drop-in organised by Adoption UK and Kinship yesterday told me that that felt very underhand. She said, “It felt like the Government didn’t care as I was dealing with my adoptive son, who was dysregulated and trying to hurt me.” There was no consultation with the sector, despite the fact that the Government have reference groups, such as the kinship care reference group, that they talk to on a regular basis. There was no consultation with them and no formal public announcement. Even the Government website on the ASGSF remained out of date for several weeks, until our first day back after recess, when the Minister issued a fairly scant written ministerial statement. My first question to her is: when she answered my urgent question on 1 April, was she aware that these cuts were coming, or did she inadvertently mislead the House on that occasion? The impact of the changes to the ASGSF means that we have a backlog. Everybody who had previously applied—some 46% of applications for grants for this financial year exceed the £3,000 limit—has to reapply. There will now be a delay and an interruption in therapy. The mum I met yesterday told me that she is borrowing money from friends and family to continue therapy because, in her son’s last therapy session, they finally achieved a breakthrough and she cannot bear to stop it. Purple Elephant in Twickenham is desperately fundraising to try to make sure that there is no interruption in therapy for the 40 or so children that it supports. We know that, with smaller grants, providers will struggle to provide adequate therapy. Given the sorts of trauma that we have talked about, these children’s brains need rewiring and they need time to build trust. Often, therapists have to run several sessions before a child will even come through the door. That takes time; it will not be done in the few short sessions that the grants will cover. Given that the assessment costs will now have to come out of the reduced grant of £3,000, after a bespoke assessment is made there will be very little, if anything at all, left for the actual therapy. In addition to the impact on the children and the carers who are desperately trying to look after them, the changes will undermine and destabilise the charities and other providers that offer support in this area. As many hon. Members have said, we are talking about children who are dysregulated and exhibit challenging behaviours, and the changes will lead to adoption and kinship care placement breakdown, which will result in extra costs for the taxpayer, because more children will go back into care. We will probably also see more school exclusions as a result of dysregulated behaviours, and therefore poorer educational and employment outcomes. Sadly, care-experienced children are four times more likely than other children to end up with a criminal conviction by the age of 24. The costs to the taxpayer of the changes, in the short term and the long term, are exorbitant, yet the fund is only £50 million; in the grand scheme of things, it is not a huge amount of money. If the Government wanted to extend the fund, say by 50%, I could tell the Minister exactly where she can get the money from. In her written ministerial statement, she suggested that the fund can be topped up from local authority children’s services budgets. I am not sure whether she is aware of this, but a lot of local authorities are on the brink financially, and many children’s services budgets are in huge deficit. However, where she can find the money is in the £46.5 million that the Department for Education spent on advertising, consultancy and marketing costs in the last year. I suggest that she halves that budget, and instead expands the ASGSF by 50%. These cuts are entirely incoherent and contradict Government policy. The DFE has recently written to Adoption England calling for improvements in adopter recruitment, and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill mandates the signposting of support, yet everything we have discussed today will go against those measures. I have three asks of the Minister: please apologise to carers and children up and down the country, reverse the cuts—I have told her where to get the money—and fight tooth and nail in the Treasury over the spending review for the next financial year, and make that announcement early. Carers and children will continue to campaign, and I will be alongside them.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement. I share her disappointment that the Conservatives have sought to pick out one particular community. Day after day in this Chamber, they vilify Muslims. As somebody who has Muslim family and brown skin, I say that we feel increasingly uncomfortable in our own country, given the attacks that we hear, day after day, from the Conservatives on all Muslims. It is an absolute disgrace. I welcome the child protection authority. On the fact that the Conservatives did not introduce it when they were in government and able to do so, Professor Jay told me that they claimed that they did not have legislative time. We all know that they did. I press the Minister to give me her personal assurance that she will work with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that we strengthen our online safety regulation and do not water it down in any way, because Professor Jay is very clear that online sexual exploitation and abuse are huge and growing.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the London borough of Richmond we desperately need more social homes, but we are really short of sites we can build on. I have long run a campaign for the disused Teddington police station to be turned into a GP surgery and social homes, but understandably the Met wants top dollar to fund its services. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to incentivise public bodies to sell assets below market value for community benefit?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on securing this important debate. It is being held only a short time after we found out that Thames Water pumped an incredible 298,081 hours-worth of sewage into our waterways in 2024, attacking our natural environment and undermining public trust. All this was at the same time as continuing to pay significant bonuses to its bosses and dividends to its shareholders, while demanding that taxpayers foot the bill. It beggars belief. The slew of scandals, the lack of trust and concerns about water quality, not to mention the parlous state of Thames Water finances that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam so eloquently outlined, are exactly why I and local campaigners are fighting Thames Water’s controversial proposals to pump treated sewage into the river at Teddington in my constituency. The Government have the power to take that scheme off the table, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), knows from when my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I lobbied him before the last election. The new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), also has the power to take the scheme off the table. I will outline why the scheme should not go ahead, which links to the subject of the state of Thames Water’s finances. The river is at the very heart of the community in my constituency, with paddle boarders, rowers and wild water swimmers from not only our local community but from further afield coming to use the river, and residents are extremely worried about the environmental impact of the proposals, including on human health, biodiversity, wildlife, and of course water quality.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. A lot of those environmental and social impacts have yet to be set out in detail. My hon. Friend and I are both eagerly awaiting, as are thousands of our constituents, the environmental impact assessments and the statutory consultation, which I believe will start later this year. Thames Water keeps telling us that water quality will not be compromised, yet it has failed to assure us that dangerous compounds and chemicals, including PFAS— perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or so-called “forever chemicals”—which I have talked at length to the Minister about, will be filtered out. Its environmental track record tells a different story and residents are understandably sceptical. Thames Water insists that the proposals represent the best value option, yet it has failed to show to the community and elected representatives its workings on how it has got to that best value definition. The company has a proven history of failing to invest in infrastructure and in the essentials, while pouring millions of pounds of bill payers’ money into short-term fixes that do nothing but produce new assets for the company to borrow against. Indeed, that is what many residents are suspicious the scheme is about: trying to load up its balance sheet to be able to leverage yet more debt. Just as Thames Water declares itself to be on the verge of collapse, the Government would approve a £300 million infrastructure project that, by the company’s own admission, will be used only once every two years and save only one tenth of the hundreds of millions of litres of water that Thames Water loses every day through leaks. This is after Thames Water spent some £250 million on the Beckton desalination plant back in 2012, which was meant to improve water resilience in London, but has barely been used. When I questioned Thames Water’s chief executive officer about it, he told me that it did not work as well as it was meant to—I kid you not. This leaves Thames Water customers in my constituency rightly asking why they should pay the price for its mismanagement. If the Teddington direct river abstraction does get the green light from Government, will it deliver the benefits that Thames Water claims it will to warrant the environmental impact, both on our river and indeed on its shores? It is the issue of trust that is so important to public confidence in our water companies and our water infrastructure. The public ought to have confidence that the companies responsible for our most basic human need, clean water, are acting in their best interests, not in the interests of shareholders and executives. Time and again Thames Water has eroded that trust and proven itself unworthy of the public’s confidence, and throughout it has been our constituents who have been asked to pay up for the failures and the mismanagement of the company. Over a quarter of bill payers’ money is spent simply on servicing water company debt. Worse still, while Thames Water pleads poverty, its executives slip out the back door with eye-watering bonuses. Where is the accountability? Where is the justice for those who suffer the consequences of their negligence? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has set out, the Liberal Democrats have a strong record on this issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and his attempts to hold Thames Water to account in the courts and challenge it for its horrendous behaviour. He has been absolutely outstanding. I thank him for everything he has done with his tremendous campaign. We must put an end to the cycle of environmental negligence and financial mismanagement. Thames Water is on the brink, and placing it into special administration is the only way to prevent a full-scale collapse. Meanwhile, Ofwat lacks the authority to hold failing water companies to account, and unless the Government take decisive action, they risk the same weakness. It is time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has already said, to replace Ofwat with a regulator that has real enforcement powers and the full backing of the Government behind it. The bottom line is that we need to crack down on failing water companies, not prop them up. With customers paying ever higher bills and our precious environment at risk, the Government must go much further, much faster, in reining in these companies.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this incredibly important debate. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber today, it is vital that all children and young people are equipped to develop safe, healthy and happy relationships, and it is vital that they recognise what is inappropriate, unacceptable and abusive behaviour. Parents and carers, and wider family and friend networks, as well as schools, have an important role to play in developing this knowledge and understanding. However, we cannot take this knowledge for granted. As we have heard with the proliferation of harmful online content served up to our children and young people, they are at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how we should be interacting with each other. According to Internet Matters, girls experience a disproportionate level of harm online, with three in four girls aged 13 to 16 reporting harmful online experiences. Sadly, this translates into inappropriate behaviour in real life. Despite some really excellent work that I have heard about from secondary schools in my constituency, worryingly, a survey by Kingston and Richmond Youth Council found that 40% of girls had been physically followed in a way that made them feel unsafe or uncomfortable and 50% had felt pressured into sending intimate pictures of themselves online, but 83% of those who experienced sexual harassment did not report it. The survey also found that over 20% of boys were not confident of knowing that exposure of body parts is a form of sexual harassment, and 69% were unsure whether they would intervene if they witnessed their friends sexually harassing someone. The National Police Chiefs’ Council warned last year that young boys were being radicalised by influencers such as Andrew Tate, and talked of epidemic levels of violence against women and girls, driven in part by extreme online misogyny. That is why I was so shocked to hear the Leader of the Opposition be so dismissive of the issue on LBC today, saying that there were bigger problems that we should be focused on. We need a culture change in all aspects of society, and we need to encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against toxic masculinity, to demonstrate to the young men in their lives what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and that this is a strength, not a weakness. That culture change must come in part from the education that we provide in the classroom. Age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play alongside the role of parents and carers. The Liberal Democrats believe that an age-appropriate RSE curriculum should be led by a qualified teacher and delivered in a safe, non-judgmental setting, and should include teaching about sexual consent, LGBTQ+ relationships and issues surrounding explicit images, because all young people deserve access to high quality education that empowers them to make safe and informed choices. In addition, ensuring children learn about consent, healthy relationships, and online risks such as pornography and sexting is essential for safeguarding. Schools and teachers need proper funding, training and support as well as resources to deliver high quality RSHE. Therefore, we Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign for specialist RSE training to ensure that teachers feel confident in delivering sensitive topics effectively. I hope the Minister will confirm when she plans to publish the updated RSHE guidance. She responded to a written question from me today, but again it did not set out the timelines; I do not know if she can fill us in when she gets up to speak. Before I finish, I will touch on what we must press the social media giants to do; they need to be regulated much more toughly. Sir Jeremy, I know you were pretty active on the Online Safety Bill when it was going through Parliament, and have been active since. We must see it implemented vigorously. The Liberal Democrats want to see the digital age of consent raised, and will push for that change through the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Seriously tackling violence against women and girls has to start with prevention. We have got to tackle the online giants, but schools must also play a key role in education. We must support an education system in which every child is free to be themselves and reach their full potential, unencumbered by fear and abuse, and receiving the support they need to thrive.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) · Hansard source

  More

  Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to make a different point from his party’s manifesto, which was not voted for by many people, I will not give way, although I will pick up on another point he made earlier. Clause 5, which implements the removal of charitable rate relief for private schools, undermines the principle that I referred to: we should not be taxing education, and we should respect parents’ right to choose. The clause will undermine the ability of independent schools to undertake the brilliant partnership work that they do in our communities and with state schools. I have talked many times in this place of Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton schools in my constituency, which have done amazing work with underprivileged communities in the Feltham area, such as with Reach academy, and helped to transform the life chances and outcomes for young people in that community. The measure will also limit those schools’ abilities to extend bursaries to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the changes to hope value in order to build more affordable homes, but will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will also apply to wider projects for community benefit such as playing fields? Udney Park in Teddington in my constituency has lain derelict for over a decade as successive owners have wanted to develop it but cannot do so. There is a huge demand for community playing fields and the community wants to be able to access that land. Will she assure me that the hope value changes will apply much more broadly than just to affordable housing?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I hope you will forgive my heckling earlier—I could not resist when Sunday’s football match was mentioned. I am married to a proud Geordie and Newcastle United fan, and it was a day of high emotion in the Wilson household—although I am a Londoner and therefore a Spurs fan., but the less said about that, the better. I hope the Chair will indulge my teasing the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate, especially as we head into the second day on Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We will be talking about free school meals and breakfast clubs later. I am incredibly proud that the Liberal Democrats have a very strong record of championing and delivering free school meals. Let us not forget that universal infant free school meals were delivered as a result of Liberal Democrat efforts in the coalition Government. If not for our presence, it is clear that they would not have happened—Labour Members have previously put that on the record. I am proud to continue my party’s campaign to ensure that more children benefit from free school meals. Frankly, as many hon. Members have said, in this day and age, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we should not have to campaign on this issue. It is shocking that the Food Foundation has reported that one in five schools runs a food bank, and that as of January 2025, 18% of households with children live in food insecurity, meaning that family members are skipping meals or having smaller meals because they simply cannot afford to put enough food on the table. I want to make the case for why more children should receive free school meals, both through the eligibility threshold and auto-enrolment, and for ensuring that is properly funded, given the challenges our schools face. Why are free school meals so great? Well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) powerfully outlined, we know that well-fed children have better educational outcomes; children who took part in universal primary free school meal pilots in east London and Durham achieved on average two months more progress in their SATs. We also know that children’s concentration and behaviour improve. Behaviour is a real challenge at the moment for teachers up and down the country. We know that children end up eating healthier, because packed lunches tend to have more calories from fat, as opposed to carbs and other sources of calories, and they are higher in sodium and sugar. We know that free school meals help parents to save time and money—on average £10 per week—and, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, analysis by that well-known left-wing think-tank PricewaterhouseCoopers shows there is a huge economic benefit: for every £1 invested, there is £1.38 return. Why do we need more children to be eligible for free school meals? We know from the Child Poverty Action Group that some 900,000 children living in poverty are currently missing out on free school meals. The threshold that is used at the moment—£7,400 of family income—is shockingly low. It was last uprated in 2018; we are now in 2025, and we all know about the inflationary pressures and the cost of living crisis that we have faced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who is no longer in his place, mentioned in his intervention, about a million children are set to lose out on free school meals as a result of the migration of legacy benefits to universal credit. The temporary extension to the arrangements is due to expire at the end of this month. I really hope that Ministers will take urgent action on that, because we cannot afford to see yet more children losing out on free school meals. I recognise that I happen to represent a relatively affluent constituency, but that does not mean that there is no poverty there; in fact, it is often in more affluent constituencies that pockets of poverty tend to be hidden and overlooked. I was moved to tears a while back when a mother came to see me at my surgery. She had fled an abusive relationship and, as a result of the domestic abuse she had suffered, she was on mental health medication. She told me, “I have had to forgo my medication so that I can use the money I would have spent on a prescription to enable my daughter to have lunch when she goes to college.” Those are the sorts of decisions, dilemmas and choices that families up and down the country are having to face so that children and young people are well fed and can focus on their studies. That cannot be right. I support the ambition, which a number of hon. Friends and other hon. Members have set out, of offering free school meals for all primary school children, but the Liberal Democrats recognise that money is tight at the moment. Therefore, extending free school meals to all primary school children is probably unachievable at the moment, and we should take a more targeted approach. That is why we are strongly committed to delivering the recommendation that Henry Dimbleby made to the last Conservative Government in his food strategy that the eligibility threshold for free school meals should be increased to £20,000, for children in both primary and secondary school. Let us remember that hunger does not end at the age of 11 and, where we have scarce resources, target them at the most needy children and young people at both primary and secondary. Welcome though the breakfast clubs are, we have heard time and again, not least from the children’s charities that gave evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, that there are concerns that the most needy children will miss out and not take up the breakfast club offer. Even with the current low eligibility threshold for free school meals, far too many children are missing out, but, shockingly, we do not know how many are missing out, because the last time the Government assessed how many children who were entitled to free school meals were actually taking them up was 2013—12 years ago. We know that at that point 11% of children eligible for free schools meals were missing out. Based on current numbers, the Liberal Democrats estimate that around 230,000 eligible children are missing out today. In a report published last week, the Education Policy Institute notes that those least likely to register are younger primary children, typically from the most deprived local authority areas. Although there are universal infant free school meals, it is still really important that parents register if their child might be eligible, because, as we have heard, that brings with it pupil premium funding for our schools. I beg the Minister to look seriously at auto-enrolment. Last week, the House considered a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb)—a Labour Member—that would introduce auto-enrolment. The Education Committee has strongly recommended auto-enrolment, and at least two amendments on it, including a Liberal Democrat one, have been tabled to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and will be debated this afternoon. In Liberal Democrat-led Durham county council this academic year, as a result of auto-enrolment, 2,500 more children are getting a free school meal and £3 million of pupil premium funding—money to help support our most deprived children to learn and thrive in their schools—has been delivered to schools in Durham. In responding to Friday’s debate on the private Member’s Bill, the Minister said that he was talking to colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about data sharing to enable more auto-enrolment at local authority level, but children cannot afford to wait. There are all sorts of challenges with data sharing, but this can be done nationally. If the Government are going to persist with the changeover from legacy benefits to universal credit, with more children missing out on free school meals as a result, this is one mitigation they can take right now. Before I finish, I want to touch on funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who is no longer in her place, touched on the fact that we have to fund free school meals properly where children are eligible for them. I welcome the Government’s recent uplift in funding for universal infant free school meals, but it has increased by only 28p, or 12%, since the Liberal Democrats introduced the universal infant free school meal policy in 2014—at that point it was funded at £2.30 per pupil per meal; it is now £2.58—since when food prices have increased by 29%. For most of that time, the funding stayed static. In the last Parliament, I and many other hon. Members campaigned hard for an uplift in per-meal funding. I was very pleased when Nadhim Zahawi finally moved a little bit on that, but the funding is still lagging behind inflation. Schools are having to find cost savings in other budgets to fund universal infant free school meals, which they have to deliver by law. As a London MP, before the Mayor of London introduced free school meals for all primary pupils, I heard from many of my primary schools that they were charging juniors more per meal in order to subsidise infant meals, because the Government were not giving them the requisite funding. If we want high-quality, nutritional meals for our children, they need to be funded properly. That is a very important lesson to learn as breakfast clubs are rolled out. As my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) have pointed out, there are alarming stories of schools picking up costs of between 60p and 80p per breakfast. That is just not sustainable. Schools do not have the extra money to subsidise breakfast clubs. We need breakfasts that have nutritional value. I asked in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee whether breakfast club breakfasts will consist of just a piece of toast and a glass of water, or whether they will actually be nutritionally valuable for children. We know that there are big logistical challenges for small schools of delivering breakfast clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) mentioned children who cannot get to school in time, particularly those in temporary accommodation. Families in temporary accommodation travel from Croydon, Slough and further afield to Twickenham, and some spend two hours each way travelling. Those are the children who most need a breakfast, and they are the most likely to miss breakfast club. In conclusion, providing a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day for every child in poverty is the right thing to do both morally and economically. The Government have the opportunity to do the right thing today by supporting new clause 7 tabled to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. If they are serious about spreading opportunity—they tell us most weeks that they are—they have the chance to step up today to improve educational outcomes for the most disadvantaged, to boost their health and nutrition, and to help every child, no matter their background. If the Minister wants to deliver on that mission, I hope to see Labour Members marching through the right Division Lobby tonight when we call a vote on new clause 7 to raise the eligibility threshold for free school meals and auto-enrol every child that meets it.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Committee, the Minister said that a cost cap, rather than an item cap, would be too complex and risked reducing choice for parents by increasing schools’ reliance on specific suppliers. She also suggested that there would be regional variation in uniform pricing. Again, having tabled a PQ, it is clear that there has been no analysis by the Government to show regional variation in uniform prices. I was going to suggest that schools that wanted more branding on items under a cost cap could sew or stick logos on plain jumpers and other items bought cheaply in supermarkets. I believe the Government want parents to have choice. My suggestion would give parents the choice of going to a well-known supermarket brand and then applying the school logo. I am shocked to hear about the answer to the PQ tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and I will have a look at it afterwards. Our amendment 1 would put pounds and pennies back into parents’ pockets and avoid top-down meddling from Whitehall on school uniform policy. Also on school uniforms, new clause 12 concerns a simple matter of fairness. The zero rate of VAT applies only on clothing for children up to the age of 14, and parents have to pay VAT on school uniforms for children who are larger or over the age of 14. In Committee, the Minister cited the cost to the Exchequer of making the change, but if the Government’s stated aim is to bring down uniform prices, I humbly suggest that she presses the Chancellor to look at this amendment, because it is a simple change to make. Turning to special needs, as I said at the outset, this is probably the biggest burning priority for the school leaders I speak to up and down the country. It certainly is across this House, given the number of Members involved in SEND debates. New clause 10 in my name would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would fund high-needs provision and ensure that children with particularly complex needs receive tailored support. With high-needs spending having tripled since 2015 and, as the Minister herself pointed out, educational outcomes for SEND pupils remaining stagnant, we need to reform the system. I know she is busy working on this, but a national body would help reduce the postcode lottery for those with the highest needs. Indeed, a growing body of experts in the sector are starting to suggest that a national body could gather evidence on the efficacy of various SEND interventions. Yesterday I said it was surprising that a Bill so entitled had little content on wellbeing. Given the huge and growing mental health crisis among our children and young people, new clause 9 in my name would place a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that every school in England, whether primary or secondary, has a dedicated mental health practitioner on site. The Government have repeatedly said they are committed to providing mental health support in every school, but it was clear when I pressed the Minister in the Chamber during a debate last Thursday that the support the Government are committed to providing will certainly not be the equivalent of a full-time person in every school. Mental health support teams, which the Government are looking to expand, do great work but are spread far too thinly. Our children and our schools are crying out for more dedicated mental health professional time. Let me turn to the issue of academy schools. I fear that the Government are mostly trying to fix a problem that does not really exist, rather than focusing on the real challenges in education. My biggest concern here is that Ministers are putting the cart before the horse by writing into legislation that all schools must follow a curriculum of which we do not yet know the content because it is under review. New clause 51 in my name would ensure that we have a core common curriculum with local flexibility built in. New clause 52 would ensure parliamentary oversight, given that we do not know the results of the ongoing review. Although we Liberal Democrats have always maintained that the automatic academy order is not a silver bullet for turning around failing schools, until such a time as Ofsted and Government have settled on a swift and robust new accountability and inspection regime to ensure high standards in all our schools, removing the automatic academy order for schools that are causing concern is certainly very risky. Amendments 223 and 225 in my name would ensure parliamentary oversight and attempt to mitigate some of those risks. Let me turn to home education. On Second Reading, I stated that we Liberal Democrats strongly support a register of children not in school to ensure that vulnerable children do not disappear from the system. We also strongly support the right of parents to choose to home educate where that is the best option for their child. However, in evidence to the Bill Committee, even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect about the amount of information that parents will be expected to supply, as set out in clause 26. That level of detail risks becoming intrusive and unnecessary. Ministers must think again. New clause 48 calls for, at the very least, a review of the register’s impact on home educators to be carried out within six months, to ensure that only reporting requirements that are strictly necessary for safeguarding purposes are retained. Amendment 224 would remove the requirement for carers of children in special schools to secure local authority consent to be home educated. New clause 53 would ensure that home-educated children are not excluded from national examinations because of financial or capacity constraints.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I had not shared my speech with my hon. Friend, but she has anticipated the next couple of points that I was about to make. I agree with her strongly. I preface my comments by saying that there are many independent special schools run by private or voluntary sector providers that do an excellent job and are certainly not profiteering in the way that I am about to set out. Clearly, however, that is not the case across the board, with some firms making upwards of 20% in profit on what they charge. We must challenge whether that is justified. The crisis in state special educational needs and disability provision and the lack of specialist places have led to a growth in private provision that is crippling local authority finances, as my hon. Friend just said. In 2021-22, councils spent £1.3 billion on independent and non-maintained special schools—twice what they spent just six years previously. The average cost of one of those places was £56,710, which, as my hon. Friend said, was twice the average cost of a state-run special school place. Many of the companies running these schools are the very same private equity companies running the children’s homes and fostering agencies that clause 15 is designed to deal with, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have not included independent special schools in the clause. I urge them to think again and accept our amendment. My new clause 29 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme for children and young people throughout England. I pay tribute to #BeeWell, Pro Bono Economics and the wider Our Wellbeing Our Voice coalition for their hard work in this area. As I have said several times during this Bill’s progress, I am more than a little surprised to find so little about children’s wellbeing in a Bill with this title. One in four children in the UK reports low wellbeing, and according to the programme for international student assessment data, our country is the lowest ranked in Europe on that head. Data on children’s wellbeing and mental health is fragmented across the NHS, schools and local authorities. It is crucial that we collect data to understand the challenges that young people face and to develop solutions, and that we seek to understand the efficacy of those solutions through the use of robust wellbeing data. I welcome the Conservatives’ new clause 36 on wellbeing, phones and social media, both as a parent and as a parliamentarian. In this unprecedented digital age, we need to treat children’s social media and phone addiction as a public health issue. We have long supported the last Government’s guidance that schools should try to restrict mobile phone use during the school day, with—importantly—proper mitigations that teachers and heads can employ for young carers and those with medical conditions who use their phones as medical devices, and in other local circumstances that teachers and heads are best placed to identify.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the huge cost pressures on SEND budgets are being driven by the lack of state special school places, with many councils forced to send children with complex needs to private special schools that can cost two to three times more than local authority provision. There are many brilliant independent special schools providing value for money, yet we know that some private equity firms are profiteering with upwards of 20% profit margins from the schools that they run. Why will Ministers not back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to include special schools in their proposed profit cap backstop for children’s social care providers?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing this debate and setting out the argument so eloquently. I also thank the almost 115,000 people who signed the petition, of whom 873 live in Twickenham. I start by apologising to you, Ms Lewell-Buck, hon. Members and people in the Gallery if I have seemed a little distracted over the past 45 minutes. I have just found out that my daughter got her first choice of secondary school—a state school, I should say—for this September, so I have been a little distracted. All her classmates’ parents have been messaging to find out, and I was trying to communicate with my husband to let our daughter know that she will be going where she wants to go. Forgive me, but I thought it was quite appropriate to mention that, given that we are talking about schools and independent schools. I am proud that my borough of Richmond upon Thames has outstanding secondary schools—in fact, all of them are outstanding or good—and some of the best primaries in the country, but that is not necessarily the case everywhere. It goes without saying that every person in this House, whatever their party affiliation, aspires for every child to receive an excellent education. Every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential, yet too many children are not being supported to achieve it. We Liberal Democrats believe in creating state schools that provide a rich curriculum together with rich extracurricular options—schools so high performing that parents do not feel compelled to send their children to the independent sector. That is why we set out an ambitious education offer in our manifesto last year; we see education as an investment, not a cost. However, as we all know too well, that is very far from the current reality of our state system. For too many children, our school system is just not working; too many are simply not getting the support they need and are entitled to, especially if they have additional needs. Teachers and other school staff as well as school leaders are struggling with ever tighter budgets to hire and keep the staff they need, especially in maths and science, with crumbling school buildings, and with a SEND system that is utterly broken. Is it any wonder that many parents, for some of whom it is far from an easy financial decision, choose an independent education for their children? They want to invest in their children’s future in the same way that I argue the Government should invest in our children, yet it is in that context that this Government have decided to tax independent schools and penalise families for making that choice. We Liberal Democrats oppose in principle the taxation of education, whatever form it takes—whether it is tutoring, higher education, nursery fees or music lessons. Even more, we believe this measure is counterproductive. Since the policy was announced, pupil movement out of the independent school sector has been three times higher than the Government predicted, with the fall being highest in transition years of year 7 and reception, at 4.6% and 3.9% respectively. The Independent Schools Council’s survey last year found that there were already 10,000 fewer pupils in independent schools. According to the ISC, this fall in numbers alone cost £92 million in state pupil funding, which is more than the Government will raise from business rates on independent schools that are charities. The majority of independent schools are small: 40% have fewer than 100 pupils. With apologies to the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), we are not talking about the Etons and the Harrows here. What I really struggle with in this policy is that, as others have said, it is not the very wealthy who will be impacted by it. The Minister will be very pleased to hear that I have met some rather wealthy people who have told me that they agree with the policy—but they can afford it; they can absorb the extra cost. It is especially the parents who never deliberately set out to secure a private education for their children, but felt forced to for various reasons, who are bearing the brunt and will be priced out. The impact of Labour’s policy is to make our private schools yet more elitist, which is what the Government are waging a campaign against. I think the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made this very point. I wish to talk about two groups who are particularly harmed by the Government’s policy. The first is families of children with SEND. As we have heard, there are in our independent schools almost 100,000 children with special needs who do not have EHCPs, and who, under this Government’s policy, are not exempt from VAT. Often, their parents opted for private schools as a last resort, after being continually failed by the state system and even rejected. This policy penalises parents for trying to do right by their children. One family in my constituency came in tears to a surgery last year, after it was announced that this policy was going ahead and would be implemented in January this year. Their son was in a local state primary school, but his challenging behaviour, which had manifested as a result of his additional needs, which the school could not support, had put him at risk of exclusion. His parents made the very difficult decision to move him to a local private school, where he is now thriving. They are paying an extra £18,000 a year on top of the basic school fees for the additional support he needs to learn and thrive. All those costs—not just the basic fees but the additional support fees—are subject to VAT under the Government’s policy. They do not know how they are going to meet the cost, but they know that if their son goes back into the state sector and to the primary he was at, he will be at risk of being excluded. I ask the Minister: why are the Government punishing families such as these? Arguably, they have saved the taxpayer a lot of money in terms of not just the child’s schooling costs, but all the further knock-on costs that we know result from a child being excluded from school. We all know that SEND provision in this country is utterly broken. Our local authorities and state schools are buckling under the demand, yet this policy threatens to place an ever-greater burden on the state SEND system, as parents are incentivised to battle the system for EHCPs—which many children probably could get if their parents tried hard enough—in order to secure the VAT exemption. Indeed, some parents of SEND children are simply being priced out of the independent sector and back into state schools, where the additional needs will need to be supported. I have repeatedly asked Ministers to monitor and report to the House on that particular impact of the VAT policy, and I ask again: will the Minister monitor and report on the impact on SEND provision for those children who do not have EHCPs and are not exempt? The second impacted group that I will briefly touch on is military families. Statistics from the Boarding Schools’ Association reveal that the Government’s new policy will have an adverse impact on military families using the continuity of education allowance scheme. Under the scheme, parents must make a minimum 10% contribution to fees, but even with the Ministry of Defence’s recalculation in response to the Government’s policy, parental contributions will have to increase by a further 18% on average, rising from £14,000 to £17,000 for a child in senior school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) pointed out, that will be unaffordable for many families, and will impact retention in the forces. Those serving our country should not be financially penalised for doing so, and we should endeavour to provide service families with continuity and stability. I hope that the Minister, alongside his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, will make a clear statement on how the impact of VAT will be monitored for CEA families, and the criteria by which they will decide to make further changes. I hope they will also commit to reviewing the CEA over the longer term to ensure that families are protected from the impact of VAT, or exempt CEA families from VAT all together. Aside from the two specific groups that I have talked about, who I think the Government have overlooked, I want to return to the wider principles. We Liberal Democrats would like to see independent schools routinely giving back to their community by way of recognition of the tax exemption they had previously benefited from, and that we believe should continue. Many of these schools already give back a huge amount to their communities through exemplary partnerships with local schools, where not only facilities but learning and experiences are shared between the state and the independent sector. Independent schools ran over 9,200 partnerships in 2024; each school involved in partnership worked with approximately 11 state schools and with 403 pupils in those schools. Examples of those partnerships include sharing sports facilities, theatre spaces, specialist teachers, mentoring schemes, cooking schools, higher education support and debating clubs, as well as bursaries and scholarships. The Liberal Democrats want to see that become the norm for every independent school, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) pointed out, the VAT policy will mean that greater partnership work is the first thing independent schools cut back on. In these debates, I have often referred to Hampton and Lady Eleanor Holles schools in my constituency, which have a brilliant partnership with a Reach academy in Feltham that is serving a disadvantaged community that has typically not had many children going into further or higher education. That school has seen its results soar and pupils accessing university and medical school as a result of the partnership. The headteacher of Hampton, Kevin Knibbs, said to me this morning: “While it’s too early to identify the immediate impact of the Government’s policies on our schools…it is deeply regrettable and a missed opportunity that independent schools elsewhere in the country will simply be unable to replicate the Reach-LEH-Hampton partnership model due to the new tax regime. Moreover, the imposition of a tax on education will compromise our and other independent schools’ ability to provide transformative, means-tested free places that are such excellent examples of social mobility in action.” I thought that was something that the Minister and his colleagues were all in favour of. We should be making the most of the benefits that independent schools can provide, opening them up to more children, not making them more exclusive and adding to the state system’s burden. I am coming in to land now, I promise. The Government have dismissed the stories of families affected by this tax, choosing to prize numbers over human experience. I fear they are being driven by ideology, but I am perplexed as to why Ministers have been hellbent on this particular policy, which hits parents’ pockets directly, and yet they have resisted my party’s attempts to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ensure that private equity companies that are profiteering from private special schools are not being subjected to the profit cap that this Labour Government are imposing on children’s homes and fostering agencies that are often run by the same companies. They are making eye-watering profits, with margins of more than 20%, which local authorities have to pay. The Labour Government do not want to do anything about that, but they are attacking parents who want to send their kids to private schools. It makes no sense to me, and I hope the Minister will address that point. I understand that the fiscal situation right now is hard. Unlike the Labour party, during the election campaign my party laid out a whole host of areas where taxes could be raised fairly in order to invest in our children’s education and our country’s future. Whether that is properly reforming capital gains tax, reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for bankers or increasing the tax on big tech companies, we are ambitious for every child. We want to put a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, to expand free school meals for all children in poverty and to ensure that those children who have fallen behind are supported through tutoring. That vision can be realised without penalising parents who are choosing to do what every parent naturally wants to do: to invest in their children’s education and future.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  No. As a Liberal—I have said this many a time—I believe in a mixed economy in many of our public services. I was about to make the point that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains important measures to stop profiteering in children’s social care. When I proposed an amendment in Committee to extend the profit cap to special schools, I explained that the private equity companies that are making a ridiculous amount of profit in the children’s social care sector are also running private special schools. Some are not making a huge profit, but I do not think a 20%-plus profit margin in a taxpayer-funded system is acceptable, which is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I proposed an amendment to the Bill to extend the profit cap to special schools. I was disappointed that Labour Members and Ministers voted against it, but I again urge them to consider the proposal. We know we are in a cash-constrained environment—we hear every day from Ministers, not least the Chancellor, about how little money there is—but savings can be found in this area, and we can invest them back into our most vulnerable children. My final proposal for Ministers, which the Minister has heard me talk about before, is that for our most complex children, we need a national body for SEND to fund those with exceptionally high needs who face a postcode lottery of provision across the country, and pose a particular risk to local authorities where those needs arise. That body could also have oversight of standards and budgets across the country. I know that SEND is high on the Minister’s agenda. We are still waiting to hear how the £1 billion announced in the Budget will be allocated, but I fear that, given the £2.7 billion of local authority SEND deficits, it will disappear into a black hole. We have been promised reforms later this year, but our children cannot afford to wait. Children missing out on an education will never get that time back. Every child, no matter their needs or background, should be given the opportunity to thrive and fulfil their potential, yet too many children with SEND are simply not getting that right now.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  Antisocial behaviour is a problem not just in our town centres, but in our parks. That is why my constituents are extremely concerned about plans to axe the specialist royal parks policing unit and subsume it into community support teams, given the £450 million shortfall facing the Met police. This means that Bushy Park in my constituency will undoubtedly get less police coverage. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents that they will not see fewer police officers in our communities and our parks?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The end is in sight for all of us—we are on to the last column of the selection list. I will speak to new clauses 59 to 62, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The new clauses all refer to support for kinship carers and children growing up in kinship care. In clauses 5 and 6 in part 1 of the Bill, we discussed and agreed a number of encouraging provisions on defining kinship carers, setting out the support they are eligible for and providing additional educational support for the subset of children growing up in kinship care. However, what we have already agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a couple of months back. At that reception, the right hon. Lady—unusually for a Secretary of State—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I think that that was in order to give her the clout in Government to go further. The four new clauses seek to do just that, and I hope Ministers will receive them in that spirit. New clause 59 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid employment leave. New clause 60 would put into statute an entitlement to an allowance on a par with that for foster carers. New clause 61 would extend pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care, based on the definition the Committee has agreed. Finally, new clause 62 would prioritise those same children for school admissions. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, often stepping up at no notice to look after a child they are related to or know, because the parents can no longer do so. In oral evidence, Jacky Tiotto of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service told us that “the kinship carer’s life will not continue in the way it had before, in terms of their ability to work, maybe, or where they live. We know that local authorities are under huge resource pressure, so there is going to have to be something a bit stronger to encourage people to become carers, whether that is related to housing or the cost of looking after those children. People will want to do the right thing, but if you already have three kids of your own that becomes tricky.” –– [ Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 34, Q78.] Time and again, we hear from kinship carers that they want to do the right thing—out of love for those family members—but financial and other barriers often stand in their way. One survey revealed that 45% of kinship carers give up work, and a similar number have to reduce their hours permanently, putting financial strain on the family. Those carers are disproportionately women and are over-represented in healthcare, education and social care, which simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services. Extending paid employment leave would enable more people to step up and provide a stable, loving home. On allowances, there are not just long-term savings to be made in terms of the well-evidenced better health and education outcomes for children; there are also immediate cost savings to be had for the taxpayer. Compared to the cost of the alternative—local authority care—the saving is approximately £35,000 a year. Every child we manage to divert from local authority care into kinship care can deliver that saving for the taxpayer immediately. Surely Ministers can tempt their colleagues in the Treasury with that immediate spend-to-save argument? In Kinship’s 2022 “Cost of Loving” survey of more than 1,000 kinship carers, one third said they may not be able to continue caring for their child as a result of financial pressures. I spoke to one kinship carer in my borough who had avoided putting the heating on and skipped all sorts of things, including food for herself, so that she could put enough food on the table for her grandson. Her story is far too common. A national, non-means-tested allowance would end the system of patchy means-tested allowances that reflect the postcode lottery of support that councils can afford to provide. Ministers have already recognised in the Bill the need for additional educational support for children in kinship care. Why are we not treating all children equally, so that it is not just those who were previously looked after who are entitled to additional pupil premium funding or priority admissions? The trauma and needs of children in kinship care are often similar to those of children who were previously looked after. We should extend the same provisions to all children in kinship care. I know that Ministers understand the sacrifices that kinship carers make and the trauma that children in kinship care have been through. The Schools Minister herself headed up a parliamentary taskforce on kinship in the last Parliament, and she was very active in the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care. I know that she is very familiar with these issues, and I hope she is sympathetic to the call in these new clauses. I hope to hear something positive and that Ministers—even if, as we know, they never accept Opposition new clauses in a Bill Committee—will seek to address these inequalities and support these unsung heroes, kinship carers, and the children they look after.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will pick up where I left off, on the third of the three key functions that this national SEND body would have. Those functions are advising on funding for local authorities, offering guidance based on current need and moving away from outdated spending models. The second function provides families and local authorities with the assurance they need that, when a child with very high needs is identified, funding for those needs is available and can be met through a central pot. When I am asked about that, I liken it to highly specialised NHS commissioning for rare conditions. It would eliminate the postcode lottery for families and the funding risk for local authorities; when a local authority comes across a child who has very, very complex needs and requires support, it can put a big pressure on its high-needs block. This body would ensure consistency in standards across the country and drive continuous improvement. It is an important piece of the puzzle in reforming a SEND system that was described as “lose, lose, lose” by the previous Conservative Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. New clause 30 is a simple clause that would put into statute the duty on every local authority to publish the details of their available preventive care and family support, because we know that those are crucial forms of early intervention for children who may be at risk of going into care or where families are struggling. They can prevent things getting to crisis point for families and children. We know that a huge amount of good work is going on in local authorities up and down the country. Spending on preventive care is falling, while late intervention spend is rising, so it would be good practice for all local authorities to make that information freely and easily accessible to all families in the way that we have already legislated for, for instance, with the kinship care offer. I hope Ministers will seriously consider this simple new clause.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. There has been an explosion of mental health issues among our children and young people. The need and waiting lists for support were already high and growing prior to the covid pandemic, and the impact of lockdowns only made that worse. The demand for services—whether they are school-led, community-led or health service-led—is rising, and those services are struggling. The NHS estimates that one in five students under the age of 16 has a probable mental health disorder, and that figure rises to an astonishing 23% of students between the ages of 17 and 19, so we need urgent action. I note that the Labour party manifesto committed to having a mental health professional in every secondary school, and in recent months Ministers have intimated that they intend to expand existing mental health support teams established under the previous Government. The roll-out of mental health support teams is far from complete, however. I do not have the latest data as of today, but I know that it was previously projected that by the end of 2024, only about half of secondaries and a quarter of primaries would have access to a mental health support team. With half of all lifetime mental health conditions arising before the age of 14, early intervention is key. The new clause would place a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that every maintained and academy school in England, whether primary or secondary, has a dedicated mental health practitioner on site, with collaborative provision in place for smaller schools where it would perhaps not be sensible to have a dedicated person. That may particularly be the case in small schools. These dedicated practitioners would be trained to a graduate or postgraduate level through sources commissioned by NHS England. There is growing evidence linking mental wellbeing to academic success. Many schools are already working incredibly hard and stretching their limited resources to provide support, but too often heads and governors tell me that they desperately need to do more. With ever-tightening budgets, mental health provision in many schools is in line to be cut. The duty that we have set out in the new clause would be accompanied by funding from central Government. The Liberal Democrats propose to fund this by trebling the tax on big tech giants and social media companies, which we know are fuelling the growth in poor mental health among our young people. Having a dedicated mental health practitioner in all schools, both primary and secondary, would ensure that students received timely and professional support. It is the right thing to do for our children and young people.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Amendment 48 does not seek to prevent faith schools from opening. It would simply apply the cap to any type of school—academy, maintained, voluntary aided or whatever. For me, the main driver for that safeguard is social cohesion and ethnic diversity. We have talked a lot about Church schools, but there are other faiths that seek to set up schools in certain areas of the country where, without the cap in place, they would not get much racial diversity. That is worrying for community cohesion. I say that as somebody who has a strong personal faith. I send both my children to a Church of England school—mainly because it is in front of my house, so they can leave the house 30 seconds before the gate shuts—but I feel uncomfortable with its level of faith selection. As we heard in oral evidence from Nigel Genders, it is important that state-funded schools be for the whole community and be open to everyone.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the provision in clause 47. The Liberal Democrats have long called for far greater co-operation between local authorities and schools on admissions and place planning. This is even more important now as we see falling school rolls, which is a particularly acute problem in London. It is the case in other parts of the country as well, but in my own local authority, eight reception classes were closed in primary schools in, I think, the last academic year. At the moment, we have high demand for our secondaries and falling demand for our primaries. Over the years, that will feed through into secondary schools, which is where most of our academies sit. We must ensure that academies or schools are working with the local authority on place planning. Having a massive surplus of places in such a cash-constrained environment is neither realistic or desirable. I would add just one caveat from talking to the Confederation of School Trusts and the evidence we heard from Sir John Coles. They all welcome this particular provision, but Sir John Coles said that schools and local authorities need clear guidance on how this will work in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on what guidance will be issued.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East for the powerful way in which he shared his personal story. I thank him for that genuinely. I was quite saddened before lunch, because there was quite a lot of discord in the room on an issue where there is actually quite a lot of unanimity. We all genuinely want to bring down the cost of school uniforms. I am still slightly perplexed by the Minister’s response to amendment 87; her point that it would reduce choice is a red herring. There is nothing to stop parents going to high street shops for shirts, trousers, skirts and all that. We are just saying that there should be a cost cap. In the arguments I heard from the Back Benches, the hon. Member for Derby North even made the point that we should consider a cost cap and, in an intervention on the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North said that at the moment, schools can charge £100 for a blazer—well, under this legislation, they still could. That is precisely why a cost cap makes much more sense than an item cap. I take on board the Minister’s point about regional variation; that is something that could be addressed, but regional variation exists now. A blazer that costs £100 in London might cost £75 in the north-east, and that will still be the case. A cap would guarantee cost savings to parents and give flexibility to schools, whereas the legislation as it stands will not guarantee cost savings on branded items. It is a no-brainer, and I therefore want to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Stringer. We live in a country where, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, three in 10 children are growing up in poverty, and I know from talking to school leaders up and down the country that one of the biggest challenges that teachers face in the classroom is poverty outside the classroom. I do not think that anybody could disagree with the intent of ensuring that children are well fed and ready to learn and start the school day, but I have questions regarding how the provisions of the Bill will be delivered. Some have already been touched on by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. First, on practicalities, in our oral evidence session, Nigel Genders, the education officer for the Church of England, said that 65% of small rural primaries are Church of England schools. I asked him about the practicalities of delivering this scheme, and he said: “there will be particular challenges in small schools in terms of staffing, managing the site,” and pointed out that there are economies of scale for the large trusts, but not when “a school…has 40 or 50 children, one member of staff and probably a site manager.” –– [ Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 66, Q142.] How is that going to be delivered? I appreciate that there will be pilot schemes, but that is a big question that needs to be answered. Others have raised similar concerns about resourcing. Secondly, although it remains to be seen how the pilots work out, given the immense financial pressure that so many schools find themselves under, I cannot stress strongly enough to Ministers how important it is that sufficient money is provided to deliver this programme. We cannot have “efficiencies” being found elsewhere—in terms of teaching staff and other activities that the children would normally get—to fund this. When the Mayor of London rolled out free school meals to all primaries, which I strongly supported, I laid down the same challenge to him. Sadly, the universal infant free school meal funding under the previous Government was very seldom uprated, and I know that schools in my constituencies were trying to trying to find money from other pots to fund it. Proper Funding is absolutely critical. In fact, the Association of School and College Leaders said in its written evidence that many of its members “remain to be convinced” that the money being allocated will be sufficient. My third concern also relates to some of the oral evidence that we heard last week: when we have such scarce resources, as we are told every single day by the Chancellor and Ministers across Government, why are we not targeting our resources at those most in need? Kate Anstey, from the Child Poverty Action Group, said: “take-up of breakfast clubs or different schemes is around 40%, whereas the vast majority of children are in school for lunchtime.” –– [ Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 98, Q217.] As a London MP, I can tell hon. Members that children in temporary accommodation are often placed extremely far away from where they are at school. In the case of Twickenham, they are often placed in Croydon or Slough—all over the place—so they are spending 90 minutes, and sometimes longer, getting to school. Many often miss the start of the school day because of transport issues. They are the most needy and vulnerable children, and the chances of them actually being in school to get that breakfast are slim, so as ASCL did, I question whether this provision “will actually attract those children who would most benefit from it.” That is why, as the Minister is aware because I have tabled a new clause to speak to this, the Liberal Democrats’ long-standing policy is that we should actually be extending free school meals and providing a hot, healthy meal at lunch time, when children are definitely going to be in school, to all the poorest children in both primary and secondary schools. I suspect we will touch on this issue when we discuss the next clause, but I will mention now that I was slightly alarmed that proposed new section 551B(5) of the Education Act 1996 says that the food will “take such form as the appropriate authority thinks fit.” I recognise that there are school food standards, but I am a bit worried that that might just be a piece of toast and perhaps, if children are lucky, a bit of fruit. Can we ensure that there is strong guidance on the nutritional value of what is being provided? Finally, on the subject of 30 minutes being the minimum amount of free time, if lots of schools only offer the minimum, and lots of parents have an hour-long commute to work, or even longer than that, 30 minutes will not meet that childcare need. I am worried about the interaction with paid-for breakfast clubs if a parent is having to drop off at 7.30 am, but the free breakfast club does not start until 8 o’clock. Does that mean they get that last 30 minutes for free, but they pay for the first bit? How will that work logistically?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to hear that supported lodgings will be referred to in statutory guidance. I heard from the charity Home for Good, which is involved in setting up those networks of local authorities that provide supported lodgings, that in some local authorities money for supported lodgings cannot be found, because the local authority thinks that fostering money cannot be used for supported lodging and that it cannot use staying close support. Real clarity that staying close support funding can be used for supported lodgings is important to make this option work.