Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  No, I’m okay. I would gently say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire that I hope she has heard—and even seen—enough from me to know that I am here to protect children. Of course I am horrified by any loss of a child, but my point is that I am trying to step back, be objective and say, “What is the reason that those children lost their lives?”. I am not convinced that it was the parental presumption—I am not saying that I am right on that; I am just open-minded to it. I have seen a particular case quite closely—I should declare that I am a serving county councillor in Surrey—and that is the case of Sara Sharif. I have gone through the safeguarding reviews in a huge amount of detail; it affected all of us councillors in Surrey greatly. It was an absolutely awful case. So many things went wrong throughout her life. From the family courts to social services, her GP and the school, there was just a barrage of failure that led to that poor little girl being murdered, and that absolutely could have been prevented. People might argue, “Well, if we had removed the parental presumption, that would have saved her.” Having gone through all that, I can tell the hon. Member that, in that case, it would not have done anything. It was safeguarding failures. People just made mistakes. They got things wrong. They were too worried about offending people to take the right actions. What I am saying today is just that it is really important, when we look at these things, that we diagnose what went wrong. We have to do that quite objectively. That is difficult when we are hearing from lots of different people who have gone through awful things, but our job is to try to not be emotional—I say that having got emotional myself—and to look at it logically. At the end of the day, we all just want to deliver the outcome that protects children. That is what all of us on this Committee want to do. But it is important that we can talk about that without the hon. Member suggesting that I somehow do not care about children, because what I am trying to do is to have that objectivity, because it matters to me so much that we do protect those children that I want us to have that proper debate and to say, “Is this really the right way or are there other things we can be doing? Do we need to do multiple things? Maybe this isn’t enough.” I am not saying that we should not do it; I am saying that we just need to make sure that we have thought this through. I will be really keen to hear from the Minister; I know this really matters to her as well, and she will have done that thinking, so I look forward to hearing her thoughts on the challenges I have brought up today. But, as I say, I keep an open mind, and we all share the same objectives.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone for their powerful and often personal contributions today. First, I want to recognise Michelle Dewar, the tenacious campaigner behind today’s petition for menstrual relief. She is a great champion for women suffering with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and I congratulate her on securing over 100,000 signatures—not an easy task, but it showcases the strength of feeling from many on this important topic. Endometriosis is a condition where endometrial tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. One in 10 women of reproductive age suffer with it, making it the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK. Common symptoms include chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding, making normal activities difficult. It predominantly affects women during their reproductive years. Adenomyosis, an often overlooked condition, has similar symptoms, but is where the lining of the womb starts growing into the muscle in the wall of the womb. It is commonly diagnosed in women over the age of 30, but can also affect younger women, as we heard today. Similar to endometriosis, it affects one in 10 women, with nearly 70% of women waiting over five years to get a diagnosis. Michelle’s own journey with endometriosis began 24 years ago, causing her to miss school every month from the age of 14. Shockingly, it was not until she was 23, nine years later, that she received a diagnosis. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, her story is far from uncommon, with many women not receiving a timely diagnosis. It takes on average eight years and 10 months from the first GP visit to get a diagnosis. Women’s symptoms are often dismissed and normalised, leaving them to struggle on with their pain, without treatment, without understanding and without support. The lack of understanding and knowledge of what constitutes a normal period or menstrual cycle also delays women seeking help and can leave family and friends uncertain how to provide support. No woman or girl knows what a normal level of period pain is without input from others, and lack of awareness leads to her not being well equipped to advocate strongly for herself with medical practitioners. We also need to recognise that there is still embarrassment and stigma around talking about periods, which can add to the challenge of getting adequate medical care when something is not right. Recognising the challenges women face in their engagement with the healthcare system, in 2022 the then Conservative Government published the women’s health strategy for England, a 10-year programme committed to improving women’s health. The strategy seeks to address disparities in women’s healthcare and the under-representation of women in medical research. One of the strategy’s eight priority areas is menstrual health and gynaecological conditions, including greater awareness, earlier diagnosis and better treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis. As we have heard many times today, all aspects of the lives of women struggling with those conditions and enduring awful pain every month are impacted. It affects their relationships, their overall wellbeing and also their careers, and such debilitating conditions impact on earnings in the long term. Office for National Statistics data published last year shows a drop in monthly earnings among women aged 25 to 54 diagnosed with endometriosis from one to five years after diagnosis, compared with the two-year period before being diagnosed with the condition. Average pay decreased each year post diagnosis, culminating in a £130 monthly reduction in the four to five years post-diagnosis period. Although it is likely that different factors contribute to this change, it is none the less worrying that there is such a statistically significant drop in earnings post diagnosis. Prompt diagnosis of these conditions is vital and the roll-out of community diagnostic centres will help immensely. Many of my own constituents stand to benefit from the recently opened community diagnostic centre in the Belfry in Redhill, which will deliver much needed extra capacity to perform diagnostic scans. That is exactly the kind of practical measure that can help women to get answers more quickly when their symptoms and pain suggest that something is wrong. When a woman is suffering symptoms that mean that she is unable to work, the current option available to her is to take sick leave. That option is available to any employee with any condition or illness that leaves them unable to work. It is a broad, non-discriminatory entitlement available across almost all conditions. From 6 April this year, following recent changes by this Labour Government, when a person is unable to work due to ill health, they are entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. It is also relevant to note that statutory sick pay is now available to all eligible employees, regardless of their earnings. The current approach to statutory sick pay therefore allows any woman who requires two to three days off every month due to endometriosis or adenomyosis to take the time she needs with sick pay. For that reason, the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for. Statutory sick pay is the better mechanism to use, because it does not discriminate or restrict provision to highly specific conditions. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are just a few examples of conditions that are equally debilitating and involve regular flare-ups—so it is entirely right that they are covered too.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I thank you all for being here. I know that this must be incredibly difficult. You are incredibly brave, and it is wonderful to see you channelling something that was so negative for you in a positive way, so thank you for that. We have focused a lot on jury trials, but there is a real opportunity here to think about what we need to deliver improvements in our judicial system, because the thing we all agree on here is that it is not working as it should. We might disagree on the best way to address that, but we do agree on the fact that change is needed in some form. What would you like to see in this Bill that is not there? What is needed to address some of the issues? Any of you who want to answer, please feel free to take the question. Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: It is a very big question. It is tricky, because I do not think that we can really ask for perfection; we are very much asking for a system that is bearable and has a bit of credibility about it. That just has to be centred, with lived experience at the forefront. So often, many victims, myself included, have said that it feels like it has gone so far to the defence side that it is no longer a justice balance. It has flipped so much on that side that I really want to urge you to consider that aspect: that it feels like the balance has gone in favour of the defence, essentially. In any decisions that you make about the Bill, just consider rebalancing that and ensuring that victims’ voices are centred in the decision-making process. If increasing magistrates to the three-year limit reduces the delays by even a small percentage, that can only be a positive thing. All those smaller elements will eventually snowball into more meaningful change across the entire sector. I could ramble on, so I will let someone else have a go. Charlotte Meijer: I guess the other thing to add, which has been discussed a few times already, is the training of judges and magistrates. We have to find a way to do that—you would not let an untrained teacher into a school—because they are making decisions that mean life or death. After my not guilty verdict, I tried to kill myself, because nobody believed me, clearly. There is a huge impact. Things do need to change. As I mentioned, I was a victim of rape. The rape did not go to court, because of many mistakes. The police offered to reinvestigate and I declined, because I knew what I would be going into and I did not want to go into that again, as it stands. A lot of that is about not just the courts, but the process leading up to it: the police and the CPS, and making sure that the police, the CPS and the courts are working together, which at the moment they are not. I am going through a three-year complaints process with the police, and they just blame each other. There needs to be accountability from start to end, because, while the Government have many different institutions that you deal with as a victim, you do not always understand it. You should not have to. I should not have to know that the CPS needs to do this and the police need to do that. It should be me coming in and other people understanding that journey for me and holding them to account. There are no consequences if the victims’ rights we have at the moment are not adhered to. I was failed on at least seven points of the victims’ rights, but there is nothing that anyone can do. It has gone up to the ombudsman, and they said, “Yes, they failed”—great.

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

  More

  I am incredibly pleased to speak in support of Lords amendment 38, which seeks to raise the digital age of consent to 16. I only wish we had much more time for this debate, as it deserves. For years, parents like me have worried about the harms of social media on our children, and the detrimental impact of excessive screentime. We have tried to manage it as best we can on our own. We have felt the sting when we have been told by others that responsibility fully sits with parents, and that good parents do not need the state to help them get this right, yet no one says that about alcohol, smoking or buying fireworks. In all those cases, it is acceptable for parents to be helped by sensible laws put in place to protect children from preventable harm, yet social media and excessive screentime are just as harmful as cigarettes, alcopops and messing around with fireworks in the street, so why would the state not step in on that too? I have three children, and it is fair to say that they love screentime. If I try to talk to them when they are glued to a YouTube video of someone else playing a computer game, they ignore me, completely engrossed. They do not want to go out in the garden, play with their friends in the street or play with toys. Instead, if given a choice, they would always choose to stare zombie-like at their tablet. Thankfully, I have kept them away from social media, but there is only so long I can get away with that. Staring at a screen for endless hours is not healthy. It prevents children from developing the social and cognitive skills they need in adulthood and is terrible for their mental health. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a mental health crisis, which started at the same time as the mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. It really should be a wake-up call. What does the future look like if our children’s most important relationship is with their phone? Their brains are literally becoming hardwired to respond to likes and shares, rather than human interaction and connection. Social media is doing exactly what it was designed to do: reeling our children in and feeding them content that often is not in their best interest but is highly addictive. We know this because we all experience it the same. Social media is not for children. We do not need any more time given over to consultation to confirm what we already know—

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

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The key concern I hear from parents and carers in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages is that they fought for years, or are still fighting, to get support. Can the Education Secretary reassure my constituents that they will not lose the hard-fought-for support that they are entitled to?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) on a refreshing, measured, fantastic speech. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I expected a slightly different topic, but it was pleasing to hear so much about the importance of strong families. Maybe we can do this debate again and I will write a slightly different speech. Between us all, we will cover various aspects that are relevant and important. I would also like hon. Members to know that I, too, am watching season 4 of “Bridgerton”—a classic Cinderella tale—which is very enjoyable. Healthy relationships are underpinned by respect. In most cases, the way we would wish to be treated ourselves is probably a good place to start our relationships with others, but we continue to see high levels of violence against women and girls, as well as other kinds of abuse such as coercive control, with no real signs of reduction. That suggests something is going badly wrong, and the Government have rightly set challenging ambitions to address this huge societal problem. We very much welcome the Government’s recently published VAWG strategy and their ambition to halve such violence, and we hope it will build on the work undertaken by the previous Government. The Conservatives elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, and we committed over £230 million to the tackling domestic abuse plan from 2022 to 2025. That included quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, and it complemented the £300 million investment in the 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of the goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse. The previous Government also created two new offences: stalking and stalking involving fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. That made it easier for victims to hold stalkers to account. On top of that, we also outlawed upskirting to further protect women and girls, criminalised revenge porn and deepfakes, and introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and, accordingly, domestic abuse protection notices and orders. We are clear that robust action against offenders is vital in the fight against VAWG. Although relationship education in schools can go only so far in addressing male violence against women and girls, it nevertheless plays an important role in educating young people on what positive and healthy relationships looks like, and the importance of putting in place clear boundaries. Those skills are vital in navigating relationships, recognising potential abuse, including coercive control, and knowing how and when to seek help when needed. Relationship education was made compulsory in all primary and secondary schools in 2020. It has several core objectives: to foster pupil wellbeing, to develop resilience and character, and to ensure that pupils are happy, successful and productive members of society. In spite of that, shockingly, nearly three women every single week are killed by men, and many, many more are raped and abused. The risks and harms arising from the online world are feeding this problem. Pornography is available online at the touch of a button on smartphones. Let me be clear: this is harmful stuff that depicts strangulation, rape, violence and degrading acts such as spitting on young women. Any young man seeing such misogynistic content day in, day out will inevitably view women and girls differently. They will be more likely to see them as an object to use and degrade. By comparison, the relatively trivial amount of time spent learning the opposite in a classroom cannot hope to offset that. The single best thing we can do to stem the tide is to introduce a ban on smartphones in schools for under-16s and increase the age limit for social media to 16. That will not address the whole issue, of course, but it will massively help. The Conservatives have backed it all the way, and I ask the Minister to do so too. The Government’s proposal to ban strangulation content is welcome and a positive step forward. I am concerned that our strong desire to eradicate VAWG has led to boys and men being unnecessarily demonised. There is a difference between calling out abusive behaviour and labelling a whole set of masculine attributes as toxic. Masculinity is a wonderful thing—the yang to femininity’s yin—and it is certainly not toxic in the great majority of cases, particularly when it is not fuelled by online porn. Our answer to a genuine question about the abuse of girls has been to tell a generation of boys, “You are the problem,” and then we are surprised when that approach, instead of nurturing healthy relationships, creates resentment and pushes more young men towards the very online subcultures that feed off grievance and rejection. Instead, we need to positively embrace what being a good man, a good partner and a good father look like. Fundamentally, boys need positive role models from which to learn and model their own relationships. That is why fathers and other male role models are so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that. When it comes to education on healthy relationships, we have seen an ever-growing load of subject matter covering issues from relationships to mental health. Good RSHE can be a protective factor when it is age-appropriate, factual and taught impartially, but it is also important to recognise that schools should not try to replace the education that should be the family’s role. There is a careful balance to be struck. As well as confident, self-assured boys, we need confident, self-assured girls who are clear about their boundaries and what behaviours they are willing to accept and not accept. That means not telling them that selling their bodies is empowering, not expecting them always to be kind, and not telling them that the feelings of men are more important than their safety. On that point, I hope we might hear something today about the Government’s unresolved approach to gender-questioning guidance for schools and the release of the long-awaited code of practice on single-sex spaces following the recent Supreme Court ruling. The Government cannot claim to support healthy relationships so long as they leave schools to navigate the issue without proper guidance. It is incumbent on this Government to reinforce rules that entitle our girls and women to privacy from males when they are getting changed—that is basic safeguarding. We received the draft non-statutory guidance on gender-questioning children back in December 2023, but two years later, schools and parents are still waiting for it to be published. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see both the gender-questioning guidance and the revised code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? My final point is on the need to be honest about where the deeper formation of relationships happens. Schools matter and good teachers can be life-changing, but let us not lose sight of the fact that children spend most of their time outside the classroom. The attitudes that shape relationships are forged primarily at home, as well as online and in peer groups. If we want healthy relationships, we cannot pretend that a curriculum document can substitute for a loving and nurturing family structure. Families can come in all different shapes and sizes, but the important thing is that they are loving, nurturing and respectful. Children learn how to interact with others from their main caregivers. What are the Minister’s plans to support strong families, given that it is likely to be the most impactful way a Government can ensure healthier relationships?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made. We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example. Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women. Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today. We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity. Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production. If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it. Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered. Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses. In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow. A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.

• 24 Nov 2025 · HMP Downview: Female Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. E wing has sleeping quarters and bathrooms, along with some living room space. Everything else that these prisoners need, like work, education and health services, are only available in the main estate. They therefore spend their days mixing with the women. So what supervision arrangements are in place to protect the women from these dangerous males?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense. All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently. There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this. Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents. They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff. Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that “we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”. —[ Official Report , 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.] Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities. This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly. Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund. In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said: “We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.” They continued: “The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.” In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund. One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards? I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding. I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027. Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Support for Trans People · Hansard source

  More

  The Equality and Human Rights Commission has confirmed that at least 19 public bodies, including organisations across the policing, education and health sectors, are misrepresenting the law on single-sex spaces. That is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling. Has the Minister been told which bodies they are, and how can women and girls have any confidence in them if they are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law?

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

  More

  I am grateful to be closing this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I thank colleagues from across the House for their passionate contributions, and I am going to attempt to list them all: my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and the hon. Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I also have it on good authority that the MPs from Staffordshire hunt in a pack, and after today I can confirm that they do indeed. Before I begin my speech, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive is something that cuts to the very heart of why many of us were drawn to politics in the first place. We know that in those crucial early years the foundations of health, learning and wellbeing are laid for life, so it is right that we ensure that those foundations are as solid as can be. I want to first reflect on the Conservative record on early years and families, starting with childcare. It was Conservative Governments who introduced and expanded free childcare entitlements, not just for parents of three and four-year-olds but for parents of younger children. It was a Conservative Government who launched the family hubs and start for life programme, investing £300 million across 75 local authorities to provide parenting and breastfeeding support to families when they need it so that problems can be addressed before they escalate. We fully recognise that stable and secure families ensure the best start in life for children. That means ensuring that support is more broadly targeted than just at the child. Family hubs are a vital part of achieving this. For 14 years, our model was to have targeted investment, early help and a determination to move away from a system where postcode determines life outcomes. Nowhere is that approach more vital than in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life—from conception to age two. The science is clear: a child’s brain develops more rapidly in these years than at any other point in their life. Attachment, stimulation, nutrition and the emotional environment during this time all have lifelong implications for learning, resilience and health. Interventions in these early days can literally change life chances, and we know that failure to act compounds over time. I pay tribute to Dame Andrea Leadsom for all her excellent work on this subject. Earlier this month, the Government published their “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. The House will be aware that the strategy’s name, scope and substance owe much to the work begun by the Conservative Government. There is much to celebrate when a new Government build on the good work of the previous one—and as the old saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The strategy identifies the very early years as a priority for the Government, which is welcome, but I must echo the Institute for Fiscal Studies in suggesting that this strategy is a first step, not the finished article. The Government’s approach to family hubs is a good example of what I mean by that. It is welcome that the Government are continuing the programme, with a further £69 million announced in the autumn Budget and £57 million in Start for Life funding for 2025-26. The goal of rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority is certainly ambitious and something to be welcomed, but there is one important point I want to make. Even with this new funding, spending on integrated early years services will be remain at less than one third of what was spent on Sure Start at its peak. Family hubs are being asked to do more, serving children up to the age of 19, but with far fewer resources per child. If this Labour Government want it to be Sure Start 2.0—and I truly hope they do—they may need to be more ambitious with their funding plans. If the Government want to build on the solid foundation they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, they must guarantee long-term investment, retain high-quality staff and ensure that hubs are universal in reach but suitably targeted in mission. Before I move on from hubs, I welcome the fact that each one is promised a SEND-trained staff member who can deliver practical and well-informed help to families navigating what is a complex system. As we in the House all know, SEND is a big issue. I am all too aware from casework in my constituency that the families of SEND children are too often left fighting against the very system that should be fighting for them. Early identification of SEND is still inconsistent, and when that diagnosis is eventually made, EHCP needs assessments and much needed support are often delayed too. Disappointingly, Ministers have refused to rule out scrapping ECHPs outside special schools, despite over 300,000 children currently relying on them in mainstream settings. That has triggered real fear among families and professionals alike. More than 110,000 people have signed a petition opposing these changes, yet to date Ministers have offered no firm reassurance that no child will lose the legal right to the support they need. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to provide some clarity and reassurance to those worried parents. Looking at the Government’s approach in the round, the “best start in life” strategy contains much that the Opposition welcome in principle, such as more family hubs, the expansion of funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents of children from nine months old, thousands more nursery places and the development of a digital offer. However, if we are seeking to ensure that every child has the best start in life, a key ingredient must be the provision of high-quality education: the very provision that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill seeks to sabotage. Far from ensuring that schools can serve as a foundation for success in the early years, Ministers have led an attack on school standards by undermining the academies that have led the way on school improvement for decades. If the Government get their way, academies will no longer be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status from non-traditional backgrounds and will be forced to follow the same national curriculum as other schools. Those measures will risk the progress made during three decades of cross-party consensus on academies. It is nothing less than educational vandalism. If any Member of the House doubts that fact, they need only pay a visit to Labour-run Wales. After 26 years of Labour in power, Wales finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science. The Government cannot even bring themselves to ban smartphones in schools—something so simple yet so effective in improving a child’s wellbeing and educational outcomes. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) introduced a Bill that would have done just that. I applaud him for doing so and for the strong cross-party consensus he built up. It is shameful that much of his work was undone by a Government who insisted on watering down his Bill and burying their heads in the sand to the harms. A Government who refuse to act against that danger give me cause for concern about their commitment to offering children the best start in life. I will conclude by making an observation on nurseries, which face extreme financial pressure because of decisions taken by the Government. The lack of compensation for the employer national insurance contribution increase is forcing nurseries and childcare providers to either hike fees, opt out altogether from offering funded places or close down entirely. I ask the Minister to ponder what use any number of policies aimed at supporting nurseries and increasing funded places will be if the Treasury is driving nurseries into the ground with tax hikes before those policies have even started.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because of the time—we all have lots of questions for the Minister that we want to get through. The statutory override was due to end in 2026, but the Government have decided to extend that accounting trick for another two years. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that we are on the brink of a financial disaster in local government. Accounting fudges only delay the inevitable and make the problem even worse—and it will not just be SEND services impacted when local authorities are issuing section 114 notices; it will be all local authority services. Before I put some questions to the Minister on her proposed changes to the SEND system, I want to address some of the issues raised about Surrey county council specifically. Members have already laid out clearly some of the challenges experienced by Surrey parents trying to secure SEND support for their child. I too share their concerns and agree that that is unacceptable. Like them, I have spent much time grappling with the council to ensure that it delivers the right support to children in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, so I have seen at first hand deadlines being missed, information being withheld, decisions being delayed and essential support not being provided. Although I recognise the challenges and pressures on the council from an insufficiently funded and less than optimal system, the fact is that the law is clear on support for children with SEND. I thank parents and groups that have fought hard in recent years to shine a light on the issues both in Surrey and beyond. I want to make special mention of the Let Us Learn Too campaign, whose founder, Hayley Harding, is one of my constituents. That important campaign started in 2021 and has sought to raise as an issue the difficulties that disabled people and young people have been experiencing in accessing education. It is important to say that they were extremely disappointed at the lack of detail coming out of the hearing of the Education Committee on 1 July about the forthcoming changes. To return to the situation in Surrey specifically, I welcome the recent appointment of Councillor Jonathan Hulley with a specific focus on addressing the issues and delivering a better, more effective SEND service. One of his first actions has been to propose boosting the future annual SEND budget by 42% in order to substantially increase staff. As part of the plans, the number of caseworkers will be increased from 81 to 111, resulting in caseloads being reduced from over 200 per staff member currently to 150. Also, 30 new assessment officers will be put in place to support families during the 20-week process, and a mediation and dispute resolution officer team will be established to support early resolution of cases where mediation or a tribunal has been requested. The proposals will increase SEND staff by 103 permanent positions—an 80% overall increase in SEND staff. That is all very positive, and I welcome Surrey’s actions to address the issues raised, but we are still in the dark about national reforms and how they might impact plans such as those at local authority level. Without firm information, we see speculation starting. Last week, the future of SEND support was splashed across the front pages of three national newspapers. Despite the off-the-record briefings from the Department, Government Front Benchers have failed to give parents any reassurance on their plans. Parents are rightly anxious about what any change could mean for their child and the support they are entitled to. I have a series of questions for the Minister. When will we finally see the White Paper? Does she anticipate a change to the Children and Families Act 2014 as a result of the Government’s proposed reforms? Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes? Will EHCPs be part of the plan going forward? Will there be any new capital funding for new special schools, or does the Department plan to build capacity in mainstream schools? Is the Department engaging with parents, schools, colleges and local government leaders ahead of the publication of the White Paper to ensure their support? Will the White Paper include reforms to school transportation? Is work under way in the Department to look at early identification, and what role will support staff and access to specialist interventions, such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, play? Given that any changes will be a worry to many constituents up and down the country, can the Minister confirm today that MPs will be given a chance to vote on any proposed changes? I will now allow time for the Minister to go through that list of questions.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for obtaining this important and very timely debate on SEND provision in the south-east. First, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a serving Surrey county councillor. I was also a member of the Public Accounts Committee during its inquiry on support for children and young people with special educational needs. SEND support in the south-east is in crisis. Children are not getting the support that they are legally entitled to at the right time, which is driving poorer outcomes and putting untold stress on families. My inbox, like those of many Members here, is full of examples: parents battling to secure much-needed support for their child to thrive, yet facing incompetence and fundamental misunderstandings of the law by the council; carers forced to give up work to stay at home with their child while they languish without school provision; and families driven to the brink of despair by the adversarial system. Those issues must be addressed, and fast, for the sake of our children and their loved ones. Despite significant increases in recent years in SEND funding, to £10.7 billion, there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for children and young people since 2019. Only half of EHCPs are issued within the 20-week statutory deadline, resulting in children having to wait too long for support. Shockingly, in about 98% of cases that go to a tribunal, the tribunal finds in favour of the family, indicating that something is going very wrong in the original decision-making process. It is clear that the overall system is not fit for purpose and is inadequately funded, making local authorities’ already difficult job in this area even harder. Worryingly, a statutory override system has been put in place, which essentially allows the ever-growing SEND deficit on local authority books to be ignored. According to the recent Public Accounts Committee report, nearly half of all English local authorities are at risk of “effectively going bankrupt” when the statutory override ends.