Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I have not had time to go on my hon. Friend’s website, but I hear it is a good read. The fact of the matter is that he puts forward a policy that will cut energy bills—the opposite of what the Government are doing—create jobs in the North sea and ensure economic growth. Is that not the case?

• 29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I have to challenge that point. I said that the Minister was a fair man—if I did not, I will say it now—but, if he is being fair, will he acknowledge that the Conservatives started the investment in childcare programme that the Government have continued?

• 29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school. I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism. IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year. According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon. Members from across the House today. The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to? Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget. Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences. Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision. As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries. In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one. Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth? I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision. State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students. We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases. No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes? Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision? The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers. In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers. With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country. Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions. Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life. We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, it would increase mobility in the housing market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) stated in an incredibly eloquent speech, it would also mean that the construction industry and all the peripheral jobs would start to mobilise. It would create economic growth—I suspect that the figure of £1.2 billion is probably a bit of an underestimate, and that abolishing stamp duty would actually create more growth. We are talking about creating jobs, making people wealthier and being aspirational for the aspirational, whereas Labour Members are talking down a credible policy that would put money on the table for some of our poorest people. Ultimately, abolishing stamp duty would mean that more and more people are able to get on to the housing ladder. Let us face it: the Government are not going to meet their housing targets. It is already quite obvious that they are massively behind, and it will not be possible to meet their targets. They are killing off aspiration and confidence in the economy, and house builders will not want to meet the targets—unless, of course, they are met with huge subsidies. The question I have for those on the Government Benches is this: given the current economic situation, how much representation have they made to their Chancellor about introducing growth principles and cutting taxes so that people have more money in their pockets? The answer will be none, because that is not happening. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said that he was not making an argument for not cutting welfare, but he did not put a figure on the table. We know that the welfare bill is ballooning, and it started ballooning post covid. We intervened during the pandemic, which had to happen. We saved a £2 trillion economy, we saved businesses and we saved jobs. We did all those things—sometimes with the support of those on the Opposition Benches and sometimes without, I am sad to say—to save the economy. Of course, all of that comes with a cost. It is now right that we look forward to make sure that we are putting proposals on the table that help grow the economy and, by the way, help the Chancellor to get out of this mess. I want her to do better, because right now I have constituents who are struggling, who are anxious and who are worried. Her policies, backed by those on the Labour Back Benches, have contributed to higher inflation and a higher cost of living. These are all consequences that they backed by walking through the voting Lobbies. There is a Budget coming. Although Labour Back Benchers may be talking in silos, the Government are already briefing the papers about all the taxes that will rise. They talk about “serious Government”, but they are not talking seriously about the cuts that they will have to put on the table, because the Chancellor knows that the moment she does that, it will be her Back Benchers who stab her in the back. That is her fundamental conundrum, because she also has to placate the bond market, where we have highest bond yields. I see Labour Members shaking their heads, but that is the reality of what Back Benchers are dealing with. We are putting good proposals on the table that would mean that young families who want to get on the housing ladder— [ Interruption. ] I am happy for the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) to intervene if he wants. No? I was offering him an opportunity, because I was getting distracted by his chuntering. The reality is that most serious economists, such as Dan Neidle and those at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have said that stamp duty is a bad tax. In fact, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who I hear has been instrumental in writing the Budget, has talked about stamp duty being a “bad tax”. We all agree on that, so we have put a funded policy on the table that the Chancellor is going to need. Surely this is something that we should all take seriously, because the Government will need answers. I suspect we will come back to that. A lot has been made of the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. The Chief Secretary to Treasury said that they are “ironclad”, and I suspect they are until the next ones. We have a golden rule. In the spirit of rules, the Leader of the Opposition has created a golden rule, which is that for every £1 saved, half will go to cutting our national debt. Surely we can all get behind that. When the interest on our debt is something like £100 billion a year, surely we can get behind that. When the Chancellor is borrowing more month after month to meet everyday spending, as is obviously happening, we should get behind that rule. The last point I want to make is about the cliff-edge argument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire mentioned, we had the window during covid. I was one of those on the receiving end of not being able to buy a house at that time. I was looking for a house for my new family, and houses were going quickly because people were trying to beat the cliff edge at the end of the stamp duty window. This proposal is not the same, because this gets rid of such a window, and it means that more and more people will be able to buy houses.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  On helping Ministers with amnesia, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there was a pandemic that required a huge amount of intervention, or is he claiming that he would not have supported so many people during that period?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about millionaires getting a tax cut, but we are talking about young families getting on the ladder. Does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor agree that while Labour Members engage in the politics of envy, we will always engage in the politics of hope?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  It is very interesting to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), because I mentioned him in an earlier intervention. He knows that I fundamentally disagree with him. Abolishing stamp duty would be a tax cut for everybody, irrespective of the value of their houses. Fundamentally, we know that the housing market is gummed up, and I have serious questions about whether the Labour Government will be able to meet their housing targets. I am not sure what the housing numbers are currently—maybe he will be able to enlighten me—but this is fundamentally a tax cut that would apply to everybody. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said earlier, the speeches from Labour Members have been very interesting, but they are slightly siloed. They slightly miss out the context of what we are talking about: the economy is stalling, and the jobs tax means that unemployment has gone up. More hard-working people are now unemployed, and more young people are now out of work, as a result of this Labour Government. They can talk down this motion—as I am sure they will, because the Whips have told them to do so—but the reality is that we are putting something on the table that is credible and funded, that will un-gum the housing market, and that will contribute £1.2 billion-worth of economic growth. At a time when the Chancellor is scrambling to fill her own black hole, we are putting credible ideas on the table that the Government should take more seriously.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member uses the word reckless. Has he heard the news that the OBR has said the Chancellor will have to find another £7 billion to £9 billion due to the fall in productivity? Therefore her black hole has just got bigger.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will address it, but that speaks to the economic incoherence of what they have presented. Fundamentally, we believe in property rights. We believe in the ownership of property and the rights that derive from it, which are among the freedoms—the fundamental freedoms—in this country. It was a moment of great pride when I got the keys to my first house, and I am sure it is the same for others. Cutting stamp duty is the right thing to do, and if we win the next election, that is exactly what we will do.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to take part in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening remarks on this important topic. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the 181,000 signatories of this petition, including the 208 in Meriden and Solihull East. He rightly pointed out that holidays are valuable: they provide not just rest and relaxation but the opportunity to experience new cultures and expand one’s horizons. A number of Members made similar remarks, so holidays are clearly important. Although I do not advocate price controls—I believe in the value of the market—I thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the family friendly charter were interesting. I hope that companies such as Jet2 and Center Parcs are listening to this debate and thinking about how they can be more family friendly. School is vital for every child. It equips young people with the knowledge they need to go into the world of work, whatever it may be, and contribute to society. It also plays a pivotal role in teaching young people to socialise, form relationships, take personal responsibility for their actions and behave appropriately. Put simply, school is not just about getting good grades; it is there to prepare us for life. Every single school day missed is a lesson not learned, whether that is an academic lesson or a lesson about life itself. Across the House, we want our constituents to be able to send their children to the very best schools. I firmly believe that part of that is about ensuring that headteachers create an environment where all children are keen to get into a classroom to learn. We can, however, be in no doubt that our education system is facing a major challenge in school attendance. Although it is welcome news that the overall absence rate has fallen slightly for the most recent academic year for which there is data, absence rates remain uncomfortably high compared with pre-pandemic levels. All of us in the House have an obligation to help reverse that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out, we have only to look at the catastrophic effects of school closures during the covid-19 pandemic to see the consequences of persistent absenteeism. The current picture of absenteeism in schools is certainly challenging. In England, the overall absence rate fell to an estimated 6.9% in 2024-25, down from 7.1% in 2023-24, although still above the pre-covid rate of 4.7%. Data for persistent absence also shows a downward trend, but remains high at 18.7% in 2024-25, compared with 21.2% in 2022-23. Any child who is persistently absent from school is one child too many, losing out on vital hours in the classroom that they cannot get back. It is in that context that we must address the petition, which seeks to allow parents to take their children out of school. Even more worrying than just those headline statistics is the fact that an increasing number of people now seem to believe that it does not matter if a child is absent from school. That is not all parents, but certainly some. The impression that time spent in the classroom does not equip students for their future stands in clear contrast to the wealth of evidence that shows that children who are absent from school experience worse outcomes later in life. As the Department for Education’s research on the link between attendance and attainment has shown, pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 6, which the petition wants to allow, were 25% less likely to meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with those who attended school nearly every day. At GCSE level, that trend is even more dramatic, with pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 11 being 50% less likely to achieve a grade 5 in Maths and English than those who attended school nearly every day. Those trends show just how damaging even marginally lower rates of school attendance can be for pupils. It should serve as a stark warning to those who would dismiss being absent from school for a few days as no major problem. It is not just grades that suffer as a result, either; children who start to fall behind in school find it difficult to make up for that lost time and catch up with what other pupils have already learned, only worsening a problem that starts with just a few days of being out of school. With that in mind, can the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to reverse the trend of school absences? Attending school irregularly can lead to lower earnings later in life, a higher chance of unemployment and, in the most extreme circumstances, persistent offending in adulthood. That is why it must always be a problem when children are not in school when they need to be, no matter how innocent a few days off may seem. It is important that we make clear that persistent absence is not acceptable. We cannot create a world where absence is deemed as the norm, because that will likely lead to young people seeing it as acceptable in the workplace. Not only will it harm a young person’s job prospects; it will lead to lower productivity, which harms our economy. Does the Minister therefore have any data that highlights the link between persistent absence and the nearly 1 million young people who are not in employment or education? Wanting to work from home with the children or go on holiday may appear to be far less serious reasons for absence from school than social issues, but any day missed has the same effect on children: to deny them the education that leads to success later in life. There will, of course, always be instances where allowances need to be made for children to be absent from school, particularly when bereavement is involved. I have had to deal with that as a constituency Member of Parliament, but headteachers already have discretion to grant leave in exceptional circumstances such as those. Both schools and the Government must always be clear that some issues cannot be deemed as an acceptable circumstance, and the headteacher should have the discretion to decide that. Although some fines for unauthorised absences may seem harsh, it is even harsher to deny families the truth about the effects of taking children out of school and setting their children up for failure later in life. Does the Minister have any evidence on whether fines work to improve absence rates? Getting a grip on the problem of school attendance and returning rates to pre-pandemic levels require a concerted effort across the Government, schools and wider society, and I am proud of the work that the previous Government did to help achieve that important ambition. The previous Government recognised that improving attendance is essential for a variety of reasons, and that, for this to happen, we must ensure that school is somewhere every child wants to be, so they can feel safe and ready to learn in an orderly, calm and supportive environment. The previous Government instigated a major national drive to improve school attendance through attendance hubs. Thanks to the Conservatives, there were 18 new attendance hubs across six regions, bringing the total to 32 and helping nearly 2,000 schools to tackle persistent absence. That included investment of up to £15 million over three years—providing direct, intensive support to more than 10,000 persistent and severely absent pupils and their families. There were 380,000 fewer pupils who were persistently absent or not attending school in ’22-23 than there were in ’21-22. We were committed to working closely with schools and local authorities to drive up attendance rates, and we had a six-point plan to deal with some of the problems. That included requiring schools to have an attendance policy, appointing attendance champions and expecting local authorities to hold termly meetings with schools to agree individual plans for at-risk children. In addition, we attempted to tighten legislation, through the Schools Bill, to put pressure on local authorities to improve school attendance, requiring all schools to have attendance policies and extending the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene. What consideration has the Minister given to reviving some of those policies to help bring down absence? Labour said that persistent absence is the first barrier it will seek to break, so can the Minister update us on the progress on that and how it is being measured? The previous Government also made schools share attendance data to help to combat low attendance, including a national framework for parental fines. Statutory guidance from the Department for Education ensured that improving education was everybody’s business, breaking down barriers to accessing education. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which has been heavily criticised by Opposition Members, contains a duty on local authorities to maintain registers of children who are not in school, as well as a duty on parents to provide certain information on those registered. Will the Minister update the House on the Bill’s progress and on when we can expect to see the consultation on the register? We cannot allow a culture of school absence to become acceptable, and Members across the Chamber, as well as people outside Parliament, have spoken about a number of ideas for dealing with the problem of persistent absence from school. Wider debate on this issue is obviously necessary. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record once again my gratitude to the Minister for the time that she gave to meet with Bethan and her parents on this serious issue. The change that came about really does restore many people’s faith in what we do.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What a privilege it is to follow those powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). They are clearly two very formidable parliamentarians, and it is a privilege to be in the same debate as them. I stand today to speak on behalf of my constituent Bethan and her parents, who are in the Gallery today. I am going to do that rare thing on the Opposition Benches of thanking the Government for making changes to restrict the parental responsibility of convicted sexual offenders. It is hugely important and clearly the right thing to do. When Bethan, whose story was covered by the BBC, learned that her ex-husband had been convicted of some of the most serious child sex offences imaginable, she also learned that he retained access to her child. I am sure it is not lost on parliamentarians across this House that in those instances, for those paedophiles and sexual offenders, that access is the last bit of coercive and toxic control that they retain. In the previous Parliament, when Baroness Harman and the Minister for Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), pushed for a new clause on this matter in the Criminal Justice Bill, I had the privilege of watching with my constituents from up in the Gallery. Sadly, that Bill did not make it through the parliamentary wash-up, so the work was not completed at that time. Bethan’s family had to spend £30,000—not a resource accessible to all—of their own money to get their case through the family courts. They have gone on this journey so that more victims—parents and mothers—can take advantage of this legislation and be protected even if they do not have that resource. I speak to be the voice of Bethan and her family. Although I will not take up much of the House’s time, they wanted me to place on the record their gratitude to Baroness Harman and to Alex Chalk, the former Secretary of State for Justice, who stayed in touch with them while there was work to be done. I am pleased we have got to Report stage. They also wanted me to place on the record their thanks to Laura Farris, to both Ministers present, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the Justice Secretary, because they really have protected vulnerable mothers and innocent children and spared them from excruciating distress. While I do place on record my gratitude, it would be remiss of me not to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Bethan and her parents. They have queried the restriction to four-year sentences and the sexual harm prevention orders, which kick in with a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? The measure refers to the children of sex offenders and the restriction of parental rights, but I do not think it refers to future children. [ Interruption. ] I see the Minister nodding her head. Perhaps she will state that on record for clarity. Today I have the very easy task of being the voice of Bethan and her parents in saying thank you. This Bill is a really important measure to pass.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Children with SEND: Mainstream Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister once again to her place. SEND is a huge issue for every parliamentarian in this House, but for months parents and children across the country have been left in the dark with no clarity as to how the Government will support children with special educational needs. There has been much speculation that EHCPs might be scrapped—speculation caused by the Labour Government—and the Minister gave no answers in the packed Westminster Hall debate before the recess. I wrote to her after that debate. That was over a month ago, and I have yet to receive a letter providing any clarity. Will she give clarity to the parents she speaks about, confirm when the White Paper might be published and tell us whether the Government will be amending the 2014 legislation and scrapping EHCPs?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  As a British Muslim who grew up in Birmingham and the west midlands and did business there, I was deeply saddened by this decision—I was saddened for the British Jewish community. We are a tolerant, diverse nation, and a tolerant, diverse region. This decision was bad for two reasons. First, it was bad for Birmingham and the west midlands, and bad for the British Muslim community. Many have reached out, saying that they did not want to be dragged into this and that they feel similar amounts of anger. Secondly, my worry now is that a flashpoint has been created. There will now be those who will want to take advantage of the fact that it is in the headlines. There will be those who will want to come and cause trouble, and drag Birmingham’s name, and that of the west midlands, through the mud.

• 20 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his new role. I have been listening to him closely, but I have to say that the rhetoric does not match the actions. In fact, the headteacher of Ashcroft academy wrote to the Secretary of State saying exactly that the IB cannot be delivered because the additional funding has been cut. The international baccalaureate is recognised globally and allows British students to compete internationally. Cutting funding will mean that those who can afford it will have access to it, but those who cannot—namely in our state sector—will not. Why is the Minister scrapping funding for the IB and undermining standards in our state schools?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Students need assessment and examinations so they can measure up not just within England but against the international landscape that we operate in. By the way, I am sure that she was an excellent teacher who encouraged and nurtured the curiosity in her children, just as my chemistry teacher and my physics teacher did, but we should be clear about what is at stake here and what is at risk if there are changes to the educational system that we reformed, built and created. Let me make some progress, and I hope that I can answer the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). The students who would lose out are the very ones the Government claim they want to protect—the very students in our education system we should all strive to empower. There is no denying that exams can be stressful, as we have all acknowledged. Students want to do well, and they are setting themselves up for future study and careers, so it is no surprise that they feel some pressure—a lot of pressure, even—during exam season. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, exams are by their very nature stressful. As a father, it is true that I want to protect my children from every stress and injury, but I also know that they need to go through that process to learn the resilience that they will need to go through life.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the hon. Lady that I listened to every speech. As I make progress, I hope to answer her question; if I do not, I will happily take another intervention from her. The examination and assessment system has ensured that children are learning the basic skills and knowledge needed to succeed in life, that children are improving their understanding in a knowledge-rich curriculum, and that England’s position as an educational world leader in international league tables is secured. The wealth of evidence showing the benefits of exams as a means of assessment is clear, even in the very review of the curriculum and assessment system that the Government commissioned. The interim report, published earlier this year, highlighted that national assessment and qualifications are “working well”, and that examinations such as GCSEs play an important role in driving high standards and ensuring fairness, “reducing the risk that assessment of students’ performance is influenced by their gender, ethnicity or background.” Even more encouragingly, polling conducted for the interim report made it clear that students themselves value the role of exams as an “opportunity to demonstrate everything they have learned in their studies”. That students themselves recognise the value of exams shows that they understand what this Government seemingly struggle to: that exams offer students of all backgrounds the very best chance to succeed. Our educational system is designed to be a tool of social mobility and to allow the most disadvantaged children to demonstrate their potential—something that replacing exams with coursework would fundamentally undermine. In an instant, every advantage that some children have, such as access to a laptop at home, a tutor or a subscription to an artificial intelligence service, and some children from other backgrounds do not would be baked into our assessment of educational attainment. Students would no longer be rewarded for hard graft in the classroom, which they demonstrate in answering an exam question, but rather for the perks that can access outside school and pass off as their own work.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks. By almost any metric, the English education system is one of the best performing in the world. In the latest programme for international student assessment results, English pupils have continued to score significantly above the OECD average for mathematics, reading and science. England’s average PISA scores were significantly higher than those of SNP-run Scotland and Labour-run Wales. Assessments and exams have led to that. That is what is at stake here—that is what we are discussing, and we should be clear about that. That success is owed to the foundations of a knowledge-rich curriculum and rigorous and thorough assessment across all stages of a student’s educational build-up. That success story means that the suggestions from Government Members of reforming the educational assessment system—or, alarmingly, scrapping it—need close scrutiny. When launching their review of the curriculum and assessment system in England last year, the Government made it clear that they were taking aim at the examination and assessment system.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will address that question in one second. As the interim report said, students relish the chance to demonstrate their knowledge and capabilities, despite the stress of exams. I was moved by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He talks about panic attacks, and other people have talked about mental health and wellbeing, so let me be clear: if those things are observed and not accommodated by the current system, Opposition Members will happily look at suggestions and work on a cross-party basis, if we believe that that will improve the system while also protecting our children. If the Government really want to tackle the challenges affecting student mental health on a day-to-day basis, we have been clear: this is not just about exam season, and we think that banning phones from schools would do far more to relieve many of the social pressures that face young people, and allow them to focus on their educational needs instead. I welcome support from the Government Benches for a proven mechanism that clearly leads to addressing students’ mental health. After speaking to teachers and other stakeholders we are clear about the positive impact that banning mobile phones would have on mental health— [ Interruption. ] I am happy to take a positive intervention on that. It is deeply disappointing, if unfortunately not too surprising, that this seems to be the direction that the Government are taking with our education system, given the appalling record of their colleagues in the Welsh Government on education. Even the most disadvantaged children in England achieve better educational outcomes than the average student in Wales, thanks to the Welsh Government choosing ideology over evidence, and it is the students who suffer in the long term.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Let me address that point directly. First, I am not sure that narrowing the curriculum to that degree would lead to better PISA results. I think the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about that, and I was nodding my head. I agree that we should have those investments in music that the Government have not committed to— [ Interruption. ] Let me finish, because it is important to recognise for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—hopefully I have got his constituency right—that Wales, which is run by Labour, has much lower standards. That means less positive outcomes for children, which means less positive outcomes in the rest of their life. It is clear that those children are being let down by Welsh Labour. We want extracurricular activities. That is why, when I visited Coppice academy in my constituency, which also has a forest school, I was heartened to see all the work that the kids are doing in those schools. Narrowing the curriculum is not what we are talking about. We are talking about something that is wholly rounded, but we must have a standardised and anonymised test system that allows a better level playing field for people from any background to be able to challenge and to thrive in life. Let me return to the topic at hand. It is almost a month to the day that I welcomed the Minister to her seat, and we had a fantastically packed Chamber where we addressed special educational needs. I wrote to her after that debate, but I have still not had a response. Perhaps she could provide some clarity on the schools White Paper, say what will happen with the SEND reforms and also the curriculum review—I look forward to hearing from her on that, perhaps when she winds up the debate. The world’s best-performing educational systems test to ensure that all students have a strong grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic in their early years, setting up children for future success at the earliest opportunity in their education. The widespread adoption of phonics testing in year 1 in England has seen English pupils rise up the international league tables, while the Welsh Government’s blind adherence to the widely discredited cueing method and its rejection of phonics testing has seen thousands of Welsh pupils leaving primary school effectively unable to read. Students and parents alike have plentiful cause for concern if that is the sort of education system that the Government want to create in England. I hope that the Minister can wholeheartedly reject the Welsh educational system—one in which thorough assessment of students’ progress has been replaced with a union-influenced aversion to testing in any form. If the Government do go ahead with banning exams in favour of coursework and formal assessments, they could undermine every major achievement of our education system over the last decade and a half. Academies have changed the lives of their students through the initiative of their leadership. They are already being deprived of the freedoms that they have been used to in leading the way to school improvement and providing a knowledge-rich curriculum that has given every student the opportunity to access quality academic education. That is already being threatened with being dumbed down. If that were to happen, our education system would be left in an even sorrier state. I hope that the Ministers listen to the views of students and parents. The Conservatives reformed education, and by the time we left, it was one of the best systems in the world. I hope we can keep it that way.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for the statement, and I thank her and her team for dealing very promptly with an issue I have raised over the last couple of weeks. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Jewish community, and I thank those from the Jewish community who have reached out to me to speak about their concerns. I visited a Jewish school with the CST, and it was awful to see children—young British children— in 21st-century Britain having to do drills on protecting themselves from a lone wolf attack. We are clearly not in the right place on this. In the sentiment of dealing with the root causes, does the Home Secretary agree with me that inter-faith work has fallen off a cliff, and that that needs to be dealt with? I am also concerned about the raising of Palestinian flags in the centre Birmingham—closer to home—and Preston council’s hosting of a known Palestinian terrorist. All of these things contribute to the feeling I am getting from the Jewish community, which is that they do not feel safe in this country.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way? It will take five seconds.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and a privilege to take part in this excellent and well-thought-out debate on assessment and support for children with SEND. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate and for her opening remarks. I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her to improve educational outcomes across the country for all children. I pay particular tribute to the more than 125,000 people who have signed the petition, including almost 200 people in Meriden and Solihull East. As you and every other Member of this House are no doubt aware, Dr Allin-Khan, providing for children with special educational needs is one of the most complex issues facing the country today. All our inboxes are inundated with SEND issues from parents needing our support. I pay tribute to all the parents and children in my own constituency who get in touch with me, especially those from Solihull Parent Carer Voice and the North Solihull Additional Needs Support Group. Having heard their stories, I know at first hand their anguish, pain and anxieties. The SEND system has been struggling under its own weight. That is no secret; we have heard it in the debate over and over again, and it would be insincere of me not to acknowledge it. Frankly, it would be disrespectful to the parents whom I work with on a daily basis to say otherwise. However, in that same spirit of sincerity, I say to all the parties present that this debate will succeed, and we will achieve better improvements to the system only if we all work together and put parents and children first. For a party not present in this debate—namely Reform—to say that parents have “hijacked” the system is grossly offensive, and it should apologise. The Conservatives will work constructively by putting children and parents first, but we will also not allow anyone to play politics either. Personally, I repeatedly lobbied the last Government for further funding for SEND, and in March 2024, £2.6 billion was allocated to help with SEND school places. I am pleased that my own borough of Solihull received £3 million to support the system but, with an above-average rate of diagnoses for SEND children, I can attest that much more is needed. The fact of the matter is that the burdens on the system are huge. A growing number of children now require additional support to manage their needs, with a 10.8% increase in the number of children with an education, health and care plan in the last year alone. Many children with SEND rely on the tailored support that an EHCP can provide, setting out binding legal commitments to meet a child’s individual needs. However, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of children needing an EHCP since the covid-19 pandemic. There is no doubt that ensuring that children with SEND receive the best-quality education, while also grappling with increasing demand, is one of the great challenges that is pressing schools at the moment. I am sure that all Members present in the debate want to ensure that no child loses out on the opportunities that a quality education can provide. Not only children with SEND, but their parents too, rely on the tailored support provided through an EHCP. That EHCP, once secured, provides a written document with statutory backing on which parents can rely. The Minister should not be surprised, as we have heard during the debate, that many parents have felt blindsided when it unexpectedly emerged that the Government would consider scrapping EHCPs. Some 60% of children with SEND who have an EHCP in place are in mainstream schools. While Ministers have said that the Government will not remove effective support because of their planned reforms, there has been no clarity from them on what exactly the Government are providing. I ask the Minister, for the sake of all the parents who will be watching this debate: what exactly are the Government proposing? Who will decide what is effective support? If there are no EHCPs, will there be recourse for parents whose children have SEND and do not get that effective or appropriate support? Ministers have repeatedly refused to rule out taking away EHCPs from kids with special needs in mainstream schools, yet at the same time they are announcing plans to place more children with SEND away from special schools into mainstream schools. How will that work? Does the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s dithering, delay and confused messaging are hurting parents and causing them distress and anxiety? Do those parents not deserve certainty and clarity? EHCPs must not be taken away from those children with SEND who already have them. Our position is very clear. Despite repeated questions from my Opposition colleagues on whether any parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed because of the Government’s planned changes, Ministers have failed to provide any concrete guarantees that that will not be the case. When previously questioned on whether EHCPs would be restricted to apply only to children in special schools, the Government’s own strategic adviser on SEND said that they are still “in the middle of” that conversation. The Government must recognise the severe financial implications that the lack of clarity on SEND is having on local authorities. Despite funding increases of more than £10 billion in recent years, it is clear that the demand for funding is increasing, not decreasing. EHCPs are incredibly valuable documents, but they are also very difficult to get. I acknowledge that there was more to be done on EHCPs by the end of the last Government, but surely the answer is not to remove them. As with many of the parents I work with, in 98% of the cases that go to tribunal, the tribunal finds in favour of the family. How will the Minister improve that decision-making process, to prevent parents from needing to go to tribunal in the first place? I will happily work with her to improve outcomes there. Can she confirm that she is aware of the severe pressures on local authorities? Can she provide any clarity on what the Government are going to do to ensure that local authorities remain solvent and are not forced into section 114 notices? Only last week, the Children’s Commissioner published her school census and made a number of recommendations to reform the assessments and support for children with SEND, including restricting EHCPs to only those pupils with the most severe needs and creating several different tiers of support for children with SEND. Can the Minister confirm whether that is also the position of the Government? Getting this right is of paramount importance. We can see that across the Chamber. Do the Government have any information on the number of people with SEND who will go on to be among the nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training? Do they have any information on the number of young people who transition from SEND to claiming personal independence payment, for example? Those with the most severe needs must get support from the Government, but it is vital that there are clear pathways for people with SEND to get into work and obtain all the benefits that come with it: a routine, new friendships and opportunities, and the sense of accomplishment that one can get from a hard day’s work. Has the Minister or her predecessor, or the Secretary of State, met the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—the new one or the previous one—to discuss that? I recently met some of the parents, campaigners and lawyers who took the Government to the High Court over the impact of the Education Secretary’s decision to impose VAT on independent schools. Her disastrous education tax could impact 90,000 pupils with SEND in independent schools who do not have an EHCP. Specialist state schools could be overwhelmed if those students are forced to relocate to the state sector because parents are being taxed out of education. Those calls have been echoed by Michelle Catterson, the head of Moon Hall school, a specialist dyslexia school in Reigate, who said that Labour’s disastrous policies could disproportionately impact the state sector. Can the Minister share with the House the impact on the state sector of children with special educational needs being forced out of the private sector by this Government? SEND provision is also being threatened by the Government’s decision to tax nurseries and other early years providers out of business. We know that the Chancellor is scrambling to find savings. Can the Minister confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed because of the Chancellor’s need to balance the books? My hon. Friends the Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made that point well. There is huge demand among Members for reform of the system. Funding will be essential. Can the Minister tell the House how the changes will be funded? If EHCPs are removed, will parents have a statutory document that they can rely on outlining the level of support that their child can expect to receive? I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to provide much-needed clarity for parents and spell out how the Government’s planned reforms to assessments and support for children with SEND will affect them. Will they finally announce today a publication date for the White Paper, which will give Members across the House and their constituents the clarity they desperately need? I implore the Minister not just to give us the Government lines, but to give parents, their children and their teachers the answers that they need.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his role, and thank him for recognising the anxiety of the staff in the supply chain. Jaguar Land Rover is a huge employer in my constituency, not least because I have the factory in Elmdon, which employs thousands, and there could be an effect on tens of thousands, through its supply chain. Many of my constituents will be really anxious, not least because there is a lack of information at the moment. I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) about briefings for MPs. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that this Government will give the NCSC all the resources it needs to pursue the perpetrators? I am more than happy to work with him on that. Given the reports of losses being made every day, have there been any requests for financial support? Is he talking to Chancellor about anything like that, or is it too early to say?