Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Heathrow Airport Expansion: Economic Growth outside London · Hansard source

  More

  16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of Heathrow airport’s expansion on economic growth in regions outside London.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Heathrow Airport Expansion: Economic Growth outside London · Hansard source

  More

  When the Chancellor announced her support for Heathrow expansion last year, she claimed that it would deliver 0.43% GDP growth. The Heathrow expansion national policy statement snuck out last week predicts a 90% reduction in that figure to just 0.05% growth; what little growth there might be will largely be sucked out of other parts of the country, such as Birmingham and Manchester. Will she now finally admit that Heathrow expansion is not the grand growth plan she thought it was, and that it will hurt areas outside London the most?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by constituents on behalf of young adults and children who are fighting for access to treatment. I am afraid that this all became far too real for me this time last year, when a dear friend of mine was diagnosed with glioblastoma; they are now in palliative care, probably with only a short time to live. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to boost Government funding into research? As he said, too many companies think that this is just too hard to do, so we need a Government initiative, in partnership with the amazing life sciences innovators in our universities up and down the country, as well as those in industry, to really crack this problem so that families do not face this devastation year after year.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Healthwatch · Hansard source

  More

  When Boots decided to close two pharmacies in Hampton, leaving a large number of elderly and vulnerable residents without local pharmacy provision, Healthwatch Richmond played a crucial role in ensuring that we got a new community pharmacy in the area. That locally led patient voice cannot be replaced by officials in Whitehall or our local ICB, which is about to suffer cuts of over 50% in its operating budget. If the Minister is really serious about championing patients, will she think again?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, Kenneth Law pleaded guilty in Canada to 14 counts of aiding suicide. The toxic packages that he distributed around the world are believed to be linked to the deaths of some 79 Britons, including Tom, the son of my constituent David Parfett, yet Law will not be tried in the UK following a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service. David, other victims’ families and the Molly Rose Foundation have called for a public inquiry into these deaths and similar deaths connected to pro-suicide forums. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to give a statement to the House on this case and the wider issue?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I have no doubt that it is a moment of immense pride for the Minister to be able to announce as Government policy many things that he recommended in his own independent review, and we welcome them. Every child deserves to have deep, trusting, lifelong relationships, yet, as we have heard, too many children in care are torn away from those whom they are able to trust, unable to keep in touch with them for the stability they need to enter adulthood. We know from the Milburn report, published last week, that care-experienced children are five times more likely not to be in education, employment or training at the age of 17 than the general population. As Milburn says, the care system produces an intense concentration of changes “at precisely the ages when continuity matters most.” The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome today’s announcement—the strategy, the accompanying investment, and the marked shift away from harmful short-term thinking and a transactional system towards a holistic approach that puts the child front and centre of decision making, alongside long-term relationships. The Minister will know that my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Tyler, campaigned hard to close the loophole that prevented children in care from being able to contact siblings not in care, and we hope that today’s announcement will build on her brilliant campaigning. As the Minister alluded to, the number of children in care living more than 20 miles away from home has increased by 41% over the past decade, and that has a damaging long-term impact on those children’s relationships. When will we see a reduction in the number of children in care living far from their families and friends? What are the current accountability measures when children are moved to the other side of the country although that is not in their best interests, and how can that accountability be improved through the regional care co-operatives? The Minister also referenced the new financial allowance pilot for kinship carers. He knows that my party and I have long campaigned on that issue, and I very much hope that he will move at pace, working with the Treasury, to scale those pilots up quickly nationwide. He knows how beneficial it is to put kinship carers’ allowances on a par with foster carers’ allowances. I also urge him to work with Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that statutory leave for kinship carers is part of the parental leave review. Finally, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been mentioned. I note that the Minister has increased the fund overall, but the cuts to the individual grants persist. He knows that those cuts are damaging to the families affected, so will he please consider reinstating those grants?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Alan Milburn, in his excellent but devastating report, makes it clear that the young people most at risk of ending up out of education or employment are likely to go to a further education college, and he identifies that 32,000 of those FE places are currently unfunded. Just last year, in her skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised “increased funding to…16 to 19 providers to provide real terms per-pupil funding in the next academic year”, yet I know from talking to my local college that per-head funding this year is going up by only 0.55%. That is a real-terms cut and a broken promise. Coupled with the lag in funding of up to a year for new students, this is disincentivising colleges to take on these pupils. How does the Minister explain that?

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today. My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him. As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that “Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”. I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health. It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”. We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts. Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising. At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned. We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today. Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.

• 21 Apr 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary has just reiterated that it is this Government’s stated objective and aim to recognise the Palestinian state, yet there are Members of the Israeli Government who say that it is their policy to expand illegal settlements in order to undermine a viable Palestinian state. Will she take firm action, ban the trade in settlement goods, and look at further sanctions on members of the Israeli Government and Members of the Knesset who promote these illegal policies?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor said in her statement: “Every choice I make will be about keeping costs down for families and businesses”. However, when I speak to small business owners on high streets across my constituency of Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons—especially café and restaurant owners—they tell me that the soaring energy and food prices that are a result of war are only compounding the pain they were feeling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices to hike national insurance for employers and, in some cases, double their business rates. What action will she take this month and this quarter, not in a year’s time, to help those businesses stay afloat? We need them to stay open for the sake of our communities.

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

  More

  I am very pleased that we have proper time for debate today. I record my dismay that our last debate on this Bill was cut so short, when we had so many important amendments to consider. We spent more time walking through the voting Lobby than scrutinising the provisions of law that we are sent here to make. I want to start by talking about children in care. As we have just heard, their relationships with siblings can be the most important connections they have. Too often, those relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support them effectively. To that end, I would also like to commend the work of the charities Become and the Family Rights Group, who have sought to keep siblings connected. It is for this reason that I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 17. The Minister said that it is a travesty that siblings have been separated. I gently say that it was her and her colleagues who made Labour MPs oppose the Lords amendment from my noble Friend Baroness Tyler in the last round of ping-pong. I am glad the Government have had a change of heart, accepted her approach and put forward their amendment in lieu. I congratulate and thank my noble Friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield. She has been championing this issue for many, many years and I recognise her tireless work. I also recognise the tireless work of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who, as we have just heard, has also been working so hard on this issue. The amendment addresses a critical oversight in our current regulations, ensuring that the bond between siblings is not severed simply because their care status differs. These relationships are often the only constant in a child’s life. Protecting them provides a vital anchor of stability amid the profound upheaval of new care arrangements. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 requires headteachers only to “have regard for” guidance on smartphones in schools, rather than mandating the existing guidance. Young people themselves say that they want a break from the stress of social media at school. We all know the impact that our phones have on our concentration and focus. If Ministers and other hon. Members in this House cannot resist the temptation to look at their smartphones during a debate like this, how on earth do they expect a 14-year-old to ignore a TikTok notification in a double science lesson? According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, a quarter of children’s notifications go off during the day. I am deeply alarmed that our children’s educational attainment should be hindered by an issue that is so simple to solve. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about guidance and asking Ofsted to look at it. After they made the announcement that they would include the issue in Ofsted inspections, I met a group of headteachers from my constituency. They said to me, “This is yet another thing you are piling on to the Ofsted inspection. Please can you ask Ministers to just get on and make this law?” Where schools have managed to ban phones during the school day, they have seen a real transformation in pupils, going from being glued to screens to chatting and playing Uno at break times. Headteachers report significant reductions in incidents of low-level disruptive behaviour and lower in-school truancy, and children and teachers are reporting being happier in school. However, many headteachers are still battling to get their schools to that place. Our headteachers need proper support to do right by our children, where they are challenged by parents who want still to be able to reach their children even during the course of the school day, to ensure that children have a healthy and safe education free from distraction. I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State if she is listening, to make this guidance statutory. Will the Minister support schools with the tools and funding to manage this transition to ensure that every classroom is a space where children can focus, learn and thrive, smartphone free, unless they have a need for a device for medical reasons, for special educational needs or because they are young carers? It is a strange irony that the Government demand endless evidence before reining in big tech yet refuse a single review of their branded school uniform policy. By rejecting Lords amendment 41B to review the effectiveness of the Government’s cap on the number of branded school uniform items, as opposed to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a price cap, Ministers are effectively asking the British public to trust that they have exactly the right answer. The amendment is a significant concession on what we have previously proposed. It merely asks for a review of the policy after 12 months. We have a shared goal on both sides of the House to tackle the cost of living for hard-pressed families, but Ministers seem to lack the humility to admit that there is a chance that their policy prescription to bring down the cost of uniforms may be wrong. The Schoolwear Association has said that 61% of its members may increase prices based on the item cap. The Government were forced to U-turn on winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on welfare reform for those in receipt of benefits. Why will they not accept the offer of an off-ramp to potentially prevent another forced U-turn somewhere down the line? What do they fear about testing their policy in a year’s time, just in case the uniform suppliers hike their prices in response to this policy, as the industry has repeatedly warned and as a basic understanding of market forces would suggest? The Government cite their manifesto as though it were a shield against better Liberal Democrat ideas, but a manifesto commitment is only as good as its delivery. Parents want action that will actually lower their bills. If the Government are so sure they have got it right, they have nothing to fear from a 12-month review. On the theme of supporting families, I shall speak to Lords amendment 38. I first offer my belated congratulations to the Government on accepting the merits of part of the Liberal Democrat position in their amendment. Having spent a year opposing our efforts to ban big tech from collecting the data of under-16s, it is heartening to see Ministers finally recognise that we can no longer allow social media giants to treat our children’s personal data as a commodity to be harvested for profit. It is also welcome that the Government have moved towards the Liberal Democrat position of age ratings for social media, by accepting that children of different ages will be affected by the online world in different ways. But the Government have still not gone far enough. Their amendment says only that they “may” make provisions to tackle these issues, not that they will. The Government’s amendment also remains silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the infinite scroll and the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government fail to recognise that this amendment will leave parents, families, children and indeed the Government fighting against big tech with one arm tied behind their back. The recent US court cases against Meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew. Those apps are designed to keep our children hooked.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. My constituent Caroline fell ill after swimming in the River Thames. She needed antibiotic treatment and was warned by her doctor never to swim in the river again. Like many others, she has been enraged by Channel 4’s “Dirty Business”. Will the Secretary of State step up and not just replace Ofwat but improve transparency by monitoring sewage by volume, not just length of time?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has quite rightly said that someone’s background should be no barrier to success, so if she does not propose to increase the pupil premium budget, will she confirm how many children will lose out when she seeks to rebalance it, and will she guarantee that the money will always follow the individual child, not where they live?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House makes provision as set out in this Order: (1) On Monday 9 March 2026: (a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply; (b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted; (c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private); (d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the leader of the second largest opposition party or another Member on their behalf to move the order of the day that the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill be now read a second time; (e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time; (f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption. (2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (19) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill in the present Session of Parliament. Timetable for the Bill on Monday 9 March 2026 (3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Monday 9 March 2026 in accordance with this Order. (b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm. (c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Monday 9 March 2026 (4) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme Order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given. (5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put. (6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair; (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed; (c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision; (d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order. (7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day (8) If on any future sitting day any Message on the Bill (other than a Message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any Message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that Message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded. (9) On any day on which such a Message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that Message— (a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly; (b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed; (c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings. (10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if: (a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member; (b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted— “(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”. (11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member. Reasons Committee (12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member. Miscellaneous (13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies. (14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order. (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion. (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion. (15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member. (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. (17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply. (18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies. (b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate. (19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means— (a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and (b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party. This afternoon is an opportunity for the House to come together to take urgent and meaningful action and to legislate within weeks—not months or years, but weeks—to keep our children and young people safe online, whether that is protection from harmful social media, artificial intelligence chatbots or addictive gaming. It is clear that we are at a tipping point, with widespread public and cross-party support for decisive action. Every parent across this country knows the threat that social media poses to our children—to their mental health, to their physical health, to their sleep and to their concentration. They have written in their thousands to every single MP in this House—I want to take this opportunity to thank the 1,500 or so parents and carers in my Twickenham constituency who have written to me—and they are begging for a change in the law, so that they can better protect their children. They are not abdicating parental responsibility, as some people would like to suggest; they are pleading with the Government for help in providing the tools and safeguards that they need when faced with the might and the business models of enormous tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention. For me, this is personal. My husband and I fight a daily battle at home with our children, aged 11 and seven, on screen time and what platforms and games they can access. Peer pressure is overwhelming for children—especially those just starting out on their secondary school journey, as my daughter recently has—who are desperate for belonging and connection. Parents are torn between wanting to ensure that our children are not left out of online spaces, which all too often we ourselves struggle to understand, and wanting to protect our children. I believe that it is time we sent this message, loud and clear, to Musk, Zuckerberg and the other tech giants: “If your platform spreads harmful content or relies on addictive and harmful algorithms, you should not be allowed anywhere near our children.” That is why the Liberal Democrats have today introduced a Bill that would provide a range of protections for children from online harms, including the restriction of access to harmful social media. Before I describe what we would ideally want to include in the Bill, let me emphasise that if the House were to support the motion, we would seek to work on a cross-party basis to introduce workable and effective legislation quickly, given that there is support for action across the House. This is not about one party winning or owning the issue; it is about us—as politicians, policymakers and parents—coming together to protect our children, their safety and their wellbeing.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Heathrow Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  The Environmental Audit Committee recently found “that the Government is proceeding without the necessary evidence base to sufficiently underpin its economic arguments for airport expansion.” Now senior figures in the airline industry are warning about serious economic consequences of the unaffordable, eye-watering costs that will be passed on to their passengers. Will the Minister now admit that the maths for Heathrow expansion simply does not add up, and that the project is about saving the Chancellor’s economic credibility when her other policies are undermining growth?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I am not suggesting that the parental leave policy was perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If it was perfect, we would have far more fathers taking more parental leave, but typically it is mothers who take most parental leave. It is far from perfect, but the Government have an opportunity now, with their parental leave and pay review, to consider the situation holistically. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame has already set out, we as a party would like to see all parents being able to share parental leave. There would be six weeks of “use it or lose it” parental leave each, so that fathers, as much as mothers, have an entitlement of six weeks. However, the rest of the 46 weeks—taking us up to 52 weeks—would be for a mother and father to share as they wish. Again, recognising that that is challenging fiscally at the moment, frankly we have an ambition to try and double the rates of statutory maternity pay, which is also parental pay. That probably relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), because at the moment the rates of statutory pay are, frankly, less than the minimum wage and lots of parents just cannot afford to take time off, and feel driven back into the workplace, often before they are ready to return to it. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the Leader of the Opposition, who at one point said that maternity pay was “excessive”. I think that it is far from “excessive”; indeed, it is far too low and we have a long way to go to improve it. While we are discussing the parental leave and pay review, we should not forget about kinship families. Lots of families are not conventional families. Many children cannot grow up with their parents, but other family members look after them. Kinship carers step up overnight to look after children, frequently giving up jobs and careers, and incurring costs that they do not necessarily have a statutory right to receive any support for. Also, they are not allowed to take leave; often, they are excluded from adoption leave as well as from parental leave. When we are discussing family policy and building healthy relationships, that is a real gap in the system that needs to be fixed. I will move on to what I was originally going to say today, which is about trying to build good relationships. We cannot take for granted that children growing up today will necessarily have access to the right sources of knowledge. The rise of technology and social media has put our children at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how they should interact with each other, what romantic relationships look like, and—frankly—what sex looks like. We know that women are 27 times more likely than men to be harassed online, and that a third of young women between the ages of 17 and 21 have received unwanted sexual images online. We know that the online world needs to be reined in, with tech companies and influencers alike profiteering by exploiting the insecurities that men and boys often have, through the use of addictive algorithms that often promote radicalising content and monetise misogynistic content. It might have been the hon. Member for Ribble Valley who said that we should not stereotype our image of what men and boys are like at the moment. However, I think it is true that many men and boys feel increasingly lonely and isolated, and struggle with all sorts of issues, whether the cost of living or a lack of access to other positive activities. So, we need to look at men and boys as well as at women and girls, and to consider the different needs of each. I said in a debate on relationship education last year that we need a culture change in all aspects of society. We must encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against the toxic masculinity that we have seen, and to demonstrate to other men in their lives, particularly young men, what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and to realise that compassion is a strength and not a weakness. Given the significant amount of online content that promotes violence against women and girls, which is particularly targeted at men and boys, we need to ensure that we protect our children and young people, not only because of the risk of harm to their mental and physical wellbeing but because of the impact on their social development and how they build relationships. That is why we, as a party, have called very strongly for a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Different political parties have different proposals on how such a ban could be implemented, but I think it needs to go hand in hand with getting people off their devices and into other activities, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned. We cannot start restricting things for children and young people if we do not give them alternatives. I have seen that at youth facilities that are easy and cheap, or free, to access. When the young people at those facilities were asked, “What did you do before you came here?”, they said, “We would be on our screens, in our bedroom, on our phones.” We have to provide those third spaces for young people.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I think it is the first time I have spoken in a debate that you have chaired and it is wonderful to see you there. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this important debate today. Before I get going, I just want to say what an honour it is to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We often joke in this place that he is at every debate, speaking on everything; today it is truly an honour to see the emotion and passion with which he spoke about being a grandfather. I sadly never got to know either of my grandfathers, and I would have been delighted to have had someone like the hon. Member for Strangford as my granddad. I thank him for that. To be honest, when preparing for today, I thought, as the education team were asked to cover the debate, that we would largely be talking about relationships and sex education. I see that the Conservative Front Bench thought that too, and maybe even the Minister, so there we go. I will go a little bit off script, because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was much broader in her speech, talking about family policy and how we support and champion families. I am the education, children and family spokesperson for the Lib Dems. That is very deliberate, because as a party we believe that we should look at children and families much more holistically and not just through the prism of education. We are very keen on championing family policy, not just as a party but cross-party. As several hon. Members have pointed out today, healthy relationships are difficult to build when we are living in such challenging times. There is a cost of living crisis; there are parents who are working full-time jobs and sometimes juggling two or three jobs, while trying to put food on the table and looking after children, and all the pressures that brings. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) both talked about parental rights. I recognise the fiscal situation that this Government find themselves in, but we need to find the money to spend on parental rights and parental leave. All the evidence tells us that, in those early weeks and months after a baby is born, and in the early years, parental involvement at home can make a massive difference. That is not making a judgment on those who want to go out to work—I say this as a working parent myself. I was very clear with my husband from the get-go—“I am not staying at home even part time, once I finish my maternity leave. I want to be back in the workplace.” He actually wanted to take the decision to go part time with our first child and was largely full time, apart from being a local councillor, with our son.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Dr Murrison. The debate moved more quickly than I had anticipated. I thank the Minister for giving way despite my late arrival. I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s aims; we all want to tackle deprivation and poverty. In my borough, the London borough of Richmond, we are going to see £29 million of cuts over the next three years, which will stretch to £46 million by year 4. That means a huge cliff edge, and at the moment the Government are refusing to provide any transitional protection. I recognise that Richmond is largely a wealthy borough, but we have significant pockets of deprivation and very needy residents, particularly young and older vulnerable residents. Despite a maximum council tax hike and efficiency savings, we will see cuts to the most vulnerable. Will the Minister finally agree to meet with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the leader of our council to talk about how we can put transitional provisions in place? She has refused to do that so far. [ Interruption. ] She seems perplexed, but her latest letter refused a meeting with us, so I am asking her again, in the spirit of cross-party working, if she will meet us to discuss this.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate and for his tireless dedication to ensuring that what happened to Sara Sharif never, ever happens to another child again. We have heard a range of contributions today, and I want to start by saying that children’s services in local authorities across the country play a vital, statutory role in ensuring that all children, including the most vulnerable, receive the support and education that every child deserves and needs. Like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), I pay tribute to those working on the frontline, who are often overworked, underpaid and under-thanked. They deserve our thanks, notwithstanding the systemic and structural failures. As many hon. Members said, many local authorities face deep funding challenges. For some local authorities, that is exacerbated by what has been called the fair funding review. I fear we will see short-term decisions that ultimately cost the taxpayer more in the long run. The Liberal Democrats have always argued that we should see spending on supporting our children as an investment in our future—our society’s future and our economy’s future. I will return to funding, but I now turn to where my hon. Friend the Member for Woking started. I listened to his powerful words about Sara’s story with tears in my eyes, and I was reminded that I felt similarly in May 2022, when the then Education Secretary—one Nadhim Zahawi—gave a statement in the main Chamber following the brutal deaths of Star Hobson and Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. As is always the case after such horrendous stories, we said, “Never again,” and he promised that lessons would be learned. When the Children’s Commissioner gave evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee last year, she said: “Every time a child dies, we give exactly the same set of recommendations, including better multi-agency working and better join-up, yet time and again”— including after Victoria Climbié, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Sara Sharif— “we find ourselves saying the same things.” — [ Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 44, Q94.] The Government must take action, and I welcome the fact that they are taking a number of steps in the right direction—I am very happy to acknowledge that. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I met Professor Alexis Jay to discuss the findings of her review into child sexual abuse. She impressed upon me two points: the importance of a child protection authority and the importance of data sharing. I am grateful that the Minister has now announced a child protection authority, and I hope he will set out a bit more on the timelines and implementation. On data sharing, which was so critical in Sara’s case, I welcome some of the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, not least the introduction of a single unique identifier. The Liberal Democrats strongly support that because we believe that proper data sharing between services will improve child safeguarding. I hope the Government will continue to address some of the concerns that have been raised about privacy and data sharing, given the Government’s record at times of data loss and being hacked. I raised with the Home Secretary a few weeks ago my fear that there are people outside this place who are scaremongering and suggesting that this is digital ID for children, when actually it is about how we safeguard children, provide better services, and commission better services and research to support them. Another measure in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the other place, is the children not in school register. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, the Liberal Democrats have long supported such a register, so that vulnerable children do not disappear from the system. However, during the passage of the Bill we have repeatedly set out our concerns about the amount of information that has to be collected for that register. This is not just about the impact and intrusion on families; even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, in oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, was circumspect about the amount of detailed information that home-educating parents will be expected to supply. I have talked to councillors and local government officials, and they are worried about the huge burden this will put on local authorities in meeting their new duties. If the Government are going to put these duties on local authorities, funding needs to follow, so that they are properly resourced to collect the data and implement the register. That brings me back to funding. As we have heard, underfunding is a consistent theme in children’s services. I talked about children being an investment. Unfortunately, politics is such that Governments think in electoral cycles. The return on an investment in a young child is often not seen for 15 or 20 years, so it is very hard to make the case for that investment to the Treasury. The Minister has my sympathy and support in that. In his independent review of children’s social care, the Minister said: “What we have currently is a system increasingly skewed to crisis intervention, with outcomes for children that continue to be unacceptably poor and costs that continue to rise.” I recognise that the Government announced a children’s social care prevention grant last year, but I am afraid that money pales into insignificance when we hear so starkly today from my hon. Friends, many of whom represent rural constituencies that are seeing deep funding cuts through the reallocation of local government funding following the fair funding review, that the most vulnerable will lose out. It is not just rural areas, but London constituencies, too. Government Members often say to me, “You represent an affluent area.” Yes, on the whole I do, but that does not mean that deprivation, need and vulnerable children do not exist. My local authority in Richmond is one of the worst hit in the country—it will lose about £47 million of Government funding over the next four years—and it is those vulnerable children who will miss out. The pots of funding the Government are making available for children’s services are welcome, but when we offset that against the losses, we are going to see children suffer. It is a real shame that we are seeing this money taken away in London, because between 2010 and 2023, London boroughs saw an 11% reduction in the number of looked-after children, while England as a whole experienced a 30% increase. The changes to the children and young people’s services formula in London risk undoing the very good work we have seen London boroughs do to give our children the best start in life. Obviously, I will always argue for more money to be spent on children’s services, but I recognise that there is not a magic money tree, and we face a difficult fiscal situation, not least as a result of the previous Conservative Government. There are ways that savings can be made. Early intervention is one of them, and I know the Minister is very supportive of that approach. There are a number of great measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, such as family group decision making. I ask the Minister to look at the amendments tabled in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Tyler, who wants to ensure that local authorities have a duty to support parents after a child is taken away from them, so that they not only overcome the trauma and grief but make a lasting change. The data shows that half of newborns in care proceedings are born to mothers who have already been through proceedings with another child. We need to take action early to prevent the same thing from happening again. A number of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members have talked about the eye-watering cost of private social care providers and fostering agencies, which are bleeding local authorities dry. I welcome the backstop power in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the Government to put a profit cap on children’s social care providers. I urge the Minister, as I have again and again: please extend the profit cap to private special schools, which are also bleeding our local authorities dry. When one school charges more than £100,000 a year in fees plus transport, while state-maintained alternatives do it for £25,000 for the same cohort, that is an obvious place that the Government can save money. The answer is capital investment in state-run specialist provision, in the same way that it is in state-run children’s care homes. I know the Government have already started on that, but they need to go further.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Gambling Harms: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) on his extremely knowledgeable and passionate opening speech. All the contributions that we have heard today have been based on a huge amount of knowledge, experience of constituents and personal connections. I am really grateful to colleagues; I have learned a lot from them. Gambling clearly poses a serious threat to the wellbeing of our children and young people across the country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a very serious public health issue that needs tackling. As he said, some of the harm is indirect: adults in the family may be involved in problem gambling. Two thirds of people who gamble are in some degree of debt, and there are 400 gambling-related suicides per year, so gambling has devastating consequences for families and knock-on impacts on mental and physical health, education, employment and crime. On indirect harms, I was shocked to read in the Gambling Commission’s November 2025 report that three in five young people had some experience of gambling, and that half had gambled in the past 12 months. Much of that takes place through arcade gambling but, as we have heard today, online gambling is a growing problem. It includes traditional gambling sites and games with loot boxes, which encourage gambling-type behaviour that sometimes puts our children on a trajectory to full-blown gambling in later life. I am sure hon. Members have read or heard about the shocking story of a 16-year-old who, in 2022, lost thousands of pounds online in just a few weeks after seeing adverts at a football game—we have heard a lot about football advertising today—and setting up an account in his father’s name. We are becoming increasingly aware of the addictive nature of social media and of how addictive algorithms are being harnessed to prey on and profit from children’s vulnerabilities in many different ways—not just gambling. The Gambling Commission’s 2025 survey found that young people are more likely to be exposed to gambling-related advertisements weekly online than they are offline. Thirty-one per cent of young people who saw gambling-related content on social media reported that influencers had advertising gambling-related content to them. Concerningly, online gambling-related adverts give the impression that it is possible to make a lot of money quickly, while failing to portray the harms that gambling can cause. Given that, according to Action for Children, one in five children say that they worry about their family’s financial situation, it is particularly cruel to prey on children’s vulnerabilities in that way. The knowledge that children and young people are regularly being encouraged to engage in risky behaviour with potentially devastating consequences clearly demonstrates the need for protection for children and young people, who are not aware of the dangers. Indeed, three in four children say that they want more to be done to reduce the amount of gambling advertising and content that they see. GambleAware’s recent report found that seven in 10 children agree that it is difficult to avoid gambling advertising and content. When asked what they would say to those who produced the gambling ads, one child said that they felt that gambling operators and advertisers were “grooming children into thinking gambling is exciting and fun and win lots of money. You”— the advertisers— “need to put the dangers and the loss of money on adverts”. Given that gambling causes psychological distress, financial and social difficulties, and even addiction, it is clear that we need to reform the system to protect our young people. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms. We very much welcomed the Government’s decision to double the remote gaming duty—a policy that we have long been calling for—but we believe that further decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by problem gambling. We call on the Government to curb the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship, including by ending inducements, direct marketing, gambling marketing and sponsorships at sports events, and pre-watershed gambling advertising. They should also introduce clear and enforceable restrictions on content marketing, particularly on social media, create a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real power to protect consumers and resolve complaints, and replace the current self-regulation of gambling advertising with independent and enforceable regulation. Given the role in this scourge that is played by social media and its harmful content and addictive algorithms, as well as harmful gaming, there is now growing cross-party consensus that Government need to take decisive action much more broadly to protect our children from online harms, of which gambling is only one. I hope that not just the Minister today but Ministers across Departments will listen to representations and proposals from both sides of the House to ensure that we protect our children and young people from addiction, because we need to do that if we are serious about giving them every opportunity to thrive and fulfil their full potential.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Secretary of State will be aware that the so-called fair funding settlement will leave my council of Richmond upon Thames some £29 million worse off over the next three years. It will leave our most vulnerable residents, including children with complex needs and elderly people, facing cuts in critical services, even if the council raises council tax by 5%. Will he extend the transitional period?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Every child, no matter their background, deserves the opportunity to flourish and fulfil their potential. The Liberal Democrats welcome any and all efforts to reduce the number of children in poverty, because we believe that investing in our children and young people is one of the most important investments a Government can make. That is why we welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement at the Budget that the Government will lift the cap on universal credit for families with more than two children. It was a cruel policy put in place by George Osborne and the Conservatives when they were left to their own devices in government. This strategy includes a smorgasbord of existing proposals, but it is very light on any new measures that we urgently need to tackle the scourge of child poverty. Even the Government’s own numbers suggest that the strategy will leave nearly 4 million children stuck in poverty. The Government need to go further. The Secretary of State could start by properly funding the very welcome expansion in free school meals and, crucially, automatically enrolling children on to the scheme, so that no child slips through the cracks and misses out on a hot, healthy meal. The Education Secretary could also set a cap on the cost of branded school uniform, so that hard-pressed parents do not have to suffer over-inflated prices as a result of her short-sighted policy to cap the number of branded uniform items. We know that one of the biggest determinants of outcomes is housing. Like many other London MPs, I regularly see families in my surgery who are suffering the devastating consequences of being shoved into temporary accommodation many miles away from their schools and wider family. If the Government are serious about ending the use of B&B accommodation, they must focus on building social housing. We need to build 150,000 social homes every year in order that local people can genuinely afford to live in their area, with local services to meet their needs. Finally, the Secretary of State rightly pointed out the long-term costs of material poverty. The same can be true of those children suffering a poverty of love and care. That is why her failure to reverse the cuts she imposed earlier this year to the adoption and special guardianship support fund by finding just £25 million—a drop in the ocean of Government spending—is so egregious and short-sighted. Why will she not think again, to ensure that our most vulnerable children can access the therapy they desperately need to have a best second chance in life?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Residents across Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton are sick to the back teeth with South Western Railway repeatedly cancelling, delaying and putting on short trains. The service to every station in my constituency has become appreciably worse since nationalisation, despite promises to the contrary from Ministers, with local residents missing out on work, medical appointments and education. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the performance of SWR?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  David Laws was not in government for the last decade of Conservative Governments; he was there for the first five years and he did some excellent things, not least introducing the pupil premium. I would say, however, that Conservative Governments left us with crumbling schools that are unable to hire specialist teachers, a crisis in special educational needs provision, and a huge problem with persistent absence. Given those major issues in our education system, I am not quite sure why the Government have chosen to tinker with academies and governance arrangements as their priority for education policy, when there is limited evidence to suggest that a mixed economy of governance arrangements in our school system is posing a major problem. With the promised schools White Paper hopefully being revealed in the new year, although I think it has been delayed twice already, there is a question as to whether part 2 of the Bill was somewhat premature. I am increasingly wondering whether the Government feel the same way, given that the Bill keeps being delayed in the other place. By the time the Bill returns to the House of Commons, it will have been well over a year since it was first introduced. When the Bill Committee consulted education leaders in January, the one strong message that came through was about how the Government went about drafting part 2 of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out, it was done with limited consultation and showed a lack of coherent vision for the school system; there was no White Paper and no consultation of those on the frontline or in leadership positions across the sector. That lack of coherent vision and joined-up thinking seems to be a recurring theme for this Labour Government. They introduced free breakfast clubs, but they are not funding them properly. They have capped the number of school uniform items to three, but that will actually risk further inflating prices for hard-pressed families. They have proposed broadening the curriculum, which is something we welcome, and the Bill will make that statutory for all academies, but they have failed to set out the funds or a plan to recruit the necessary teachers to deliver it. During the Bill’s passage, they voted against Liberal Democrat proposals to widen eligibility for free school meals, but they subsequently decided to copy the policy and announced that they will introduce it next year. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats have sought to engage constructively with the Government by tabling amendments and new clauses that aim to improve the Bill and to address some of the concerns raised by the petition that we are discussing today. Given that the Government have already copied at least one of our policies, I hope that the new Minister, who is here today, might listen to some other good ideas in my speech and in the other place. There is a real fear that this legislation, which is seeking to safeguard children who go missing from education, will over-police home educators, most of whom are doing a great job. I have been very clear at every stage of the Bill—I think there was cross-party support for this—that the Liberal Democrats strongly support having a register of children not in school to ensure that vulnerable children do not simply 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. In oral evidence to the Bill Committee, however, even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect about the vast amount of detailed information that the Bill will expect home educating parents to supply. That level of detail risks becoming intrusive and unnecessary. Many home educators choose to home educate their children not because they want to but because they feel forced to. There is a crisis in our special needs system, and so much special needs provision just does not meet the needs of those children, forcing many parents to give up work so that they can home educate their child. By virtue of their child’s need, parents tend to be much more flexible in how they home educate, but the very onerous reporting mechanisms will interfere with the flexibility that parents need to provide for their children. I tabled various amendments to try to pare back the burdensome nature of the register, as set out in the Bill. One amendment called 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. We also tabled an amendment that would have removed the requirement for parents and carers of children in special schools to secure local authority consent to home educate. Furthermore, we proposed that home educated children should not be excluded from national examinations because of financial or capacity constraints. Sadly, the Government voted down all our amendments, but I encourage the new Minister to give serious consideration to relevant amendments tabled in the other place, because we must do more if we genuinely want to extend opportunity to every child. Our SEND system is letting down many children, and it is allowing a number of organisations with bad intentions to exploit the market failure in the system. I am talking about private-equity-run special school providers, which are making exorbitant profits, as they have with children’s homes. They are exploiting the lack of provision to hold local authorities and parents to ransom. The latest revelation in the Budget is that the Government will absorb the costs of SEND provision from local authorities, and the projected £6 billion black hole only strengthens the need to start capping the profits of private special schools. The Bill already makes provision to cap the profits of the same companies that are running children’s care homes and fostering agencies, so I again ask the Minister to consider introducing the measure so that no child is left waiting because of a lack of resource, given that local authorities are being bled dry. While I am talking about children being left waiting, I encourage the Minister to look at another Liberal Democrat proposal to automatically enrol every eligible child for free school meals, so that no one misses out on a hot, healthy meal. Durham county council, under its previous Liberal Democrat-led administration, auto-enrolled 2,500 children, whose schools benefited from an additional £3 million in pupil premium funding. It is not too late for the Minister to improve the Bill, which I do not believe needs to be withdrawn wholesale. Instead, with the help of the other place, it can be amended so that there is a strong foundation to improve safeguarding for our children and strengthen provision for them in our schools.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly support the Government’s objective of driving down the cost of branded uniform for families. Will the Minister look at the proposals that the Liberal Democrat tabled in Committee and on Report? We suggested that, instead of capping the number of items, we cap the cost, which would then be reviewed in line with inflation every year. That way, we would help to bring down the cost, because if we reduce the number of items, suppliers will just push up their prices, as they are selling fewer items. They might charge £100 for a blazer instead of £50. Our proposal would free schools to set their own uniform policy and let the market do its job by driving down prices for families.