Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to respond to this moving and, sadly, harrowing debate. I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for securing this incredibly important debate, for his dedication to this cause and for his moving speech. I also acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey)—my good friend—who set out passionately why this debate is so important and why we are all here, even though we wish that we did not have to be. Jewish students face some of the worst antisemitic abuse in society and in universities. According to the Community Security Trust, there are over 9,000 Jewish students at universities across the UK, and they have faced a terrifying rise in antisemitism. In 2022-23, there were 53 university-related antisemitic incidents; that number rose to 272 in 2023-24—the highest total recorded for a single academic year. The Union of Jewish Students has published a harrowing report highlighting the fact that antisemitism is now effectively normalised on our campuses. It found that one in four students have seen behaviour that explicitly targets Jewish students for their religion. More broadly, the report demonstrates that universities are failing to confront the open glorification of terrorism. Nearly half of students have heard chants glorifying proscribed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The research also shows that “student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews”, even justifying the sickening terrorist attack in Bondi Beach last year. As well as the terrible glorification of violence, and the sense that antisemitism is normal because it always goes unpunished, antisemitic protests also disrupt students’ learning. Students who have witnessed Israel-Palestine protests at university feel that it still goes unaddressed, and four in 10 students have seen Jewish students being harassed. Britain has a proud history of tolerance but we cannot be complacent in our fight to protect our fundamental values of decency, tolerance and support for each other. I thank hon. Members from all parties for speaking up in solidarity with British Jewish students. However, those freedoms, which are fundamental to our democracy, and proud traditions are under ever-increasing threat. Society is becoming more fractured, driven by divisive rhetoric online and offline that drives populism and pushes more people towards the extreme. The fact that our society is more divided is having a real impact on the everyday lives of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people in the UK. The Community Security Trust estimates that there were over 300 antisemitic incidents per month in 2025—that is double the number in the year preceding the war in the middle east. Student testimony collected by organisations such as the CST, the Union of Jewish Students and the Pinsker Centre demonstrates the hostile environment faced by Jewish students on campus since October 2023. Although some have already been shared, let me share a few of those comments. In a focus group run by the Pinsker Centre, one student said: “Some people suddenly radicalised…after October 7th and now don’t speak to me. They have blocked me on social media, ignore me or have explicitly told me that I am complicit in genocide.” In summer 2024, a Jewish society committee member in Bristol approached a pro-Palestinian encampment to have a civil conversation. That night he was recognised, physically attacked and assaulted in a nightclub by individuals who had heard him earlier in the day. His shirt was ripped and his back was covered in scratches and cuts. Too often, we hear about Jewish students being chased, attacked and abused because they are wearing kippot, or skullcaps. As we heard earlier, a Royal Holloway student—Evaldas, whom I spoke to earlier today—received calls in which the caller read out his home address, warned that they were coming to get him and made an explicit threat to blow up the Jewish society. He told me that he got those calls 10 times a day, and that, at one point, because his address was publicised, bloody period pads were put outside his door. As we heard earlier, a professor at Bangor University physically attacked a student while calling him a “baby killer”—a medieval antisemitic trope. I spoke today to Evelyn from University College London, who told me that, at an antisemitism stall, she was approached and called an “effing white supremacist bitch”. I paraphrase, because the abuse went on and on. She had a recording, but last week she found out that no action was being taken. I hear repeatedly about how many members of the faculty at UCL are members of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which is clearly helping to exacerbate the situation. I spoke to Ben from the London School of Economics, who told me about the launch of a book titled “Understanding Hamas: And Why That Matters”. There was a protest outside the book launch, and a counter-protest to the protest. He eloquently said to me, “If you are counter-protesting at a protest against a proscribed terrorist organisation, what does that make you?” As we heard earlier, a King’s College London student had to write a 1,000-word essay explaining why it was wrong to display an Israeli flag on campus. Imagine if that had been a Palestinian flag. Would the result have been the same? The list goes on and on. Something has gone horribly wrong. It is clear that a permissive culture of antisemitism and abuse has been allowed to fester. Antisemitism has been covered up as activism and protest. Hate is being legitimised, and British Jews are left isolated and living in fear. Our Jewish communities need us. In this moment, we cannot falter. I am pleased that the Government have announced some new steps to ensure that universities publish the scale of antisemitism on campuses—that is a welcome step forward—but we need further clarity on what exactly the Government will do if universities continue to fail to tackle antisemitism, examples of which I have listed. Saying, “We will set out next steps in due course” is not enough. Our Jewish community need to know today what the Government intend to do to clamp down on this. Will the Minister address that? The shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has said that universities that fail to clamp down on antisemitism should have their funding stripped to ensure that there are real and serious consequences for that failure. I therefore ask the Minister to identify the steps that the Government will take to punish universities that have allowed antisemitism to become normalised. Too many students tell me that the complaints system is insufficient. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which they have to go through, has no meaningful sanctions. We need a complaints system that works for students. I encourage the Minister to look into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) wrote to him about it, but he is yet to receive a reply. Will the Minister address that? Is the Minister working with the Office for Students to better tackle antisemitism? I recognise that an independent investigation into antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities is due by the autumn, but will the Minister update the House on specific timetabling, as other Members have asked him to? The evidence we have heard today shows how important it is to tackle antisemitism urgently. The importance of this debate cannot be overstated. It goes above party politics, so I offer my sincerest support to the Minister in helping the Government to tackle extremism of all kinds in our universities. I say to British Jews: His Majesty’s Opposition will never shy away from standing up for you, and we will do so without fear, knowing that we are standing up for what is right. There are too many platitudes, too many never agains, and yet nothing changes. When I meet British Jews, as I did yesterday, I too often see fear and anxiety in their eyes. I too often hear that they are not sure if this country—their country—is safe for them. To hear about raging antisemitism on our university campuses, which should be a safe place for all, is a stain on our society. A future Conservative Government would ensure that universities do not allow antisemitism to fester. Those that do not comply would face the toughest of sanctions. Hate preachers who come to this country to spread hate would, under the Conservatives, be deported. Where the law is broken, we would empower the police to enforce it to its fullest extent. To British Jews, let me say this: your fight is our fight, you are of us and we are of you, and we will not fail you in this endeavour.

• 22 Jun 2026 · SEND: Improvement · Hansard source

  More

  Just a few months ago, the TES reported that the Government had frozen the high needs funding block, which special schools rely on. Headteachers are warning that the Government’s decision means that children will not get the support they need due to a lack of funding. The Minister may well point to the Experts at Hand service, but it is not the same and does not come close to meeting what each school will have lost. How can she justify freezing the high needs funding block when the demand for special schools is rising, the demand for education, health and care plans is rising, and the Government’s reforms are years away?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. That is exactly why we are here today. I am really concerned about the core of our communities being hollowed out by Government interventions. For elderly people in particular, a good pub lunch with great drinks and warm food can be a staple of the weekly routine. It is therefore no wonder that two thirds of adults believe that their local pub is vital to combating loneliness and social isolation. On the back of my hon. Friend’s intervention, I gently ask the Minister whether he recognises that losing a rural pub has a huge impact on our rural communities. Where are those people meant to go? Dr Thomas Thurnell-Read from Loughborough University has conducted some fascinating research into the social value of pubs in local communities. The project looked at the impact of pub closures on communities and made it very clear that the loss of a pub, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) said, is so much more than just the loss of a business. Dr Thurnell-Read made it clear that the closure of a pub echoes throughout the entire community, impacting friendships, identities and vital local support networks in ways that cannot be captured by data alone. As traditional community infrastructure such as banks, village halls and post offices also come under pressure, pubs are more important than ever as anchors in our rural communities. For rural areas, some pubs now act as more than just a place to meet and socialise. They have essential services such as micro post offices, prescription drop-offs, wi-fi hubs and barbers, as my hon. Friend mentioned. They even house part-time library shelves. Research by the Rural Services Network has found that for every £1 invested in the provision of services and activities in the pub, an average of £8.28 of social value is created. It found that the diverse new services offered by pubs in local communities have lasting positive impacts on the overall wellbeing of individuals and their families, as well as on reducing loneliness, improving mental health and giving people greater independence. Having spoken at great length about the value and importance of rural pubs, I am really concerned about the Government’s intervention and the lack of support for this vital industry. Some of our best pubs are in the Chancellor’s crosshairs. Labour has hit rural pubs with increased taxes and a litany of new burdensome legislation that is killing them off. The pub and brewing sector is among the most highly taxed of any business sector, with around £1 in every £3 spent in the pub going back to HMRC. One of the most egregious taxes is the Government’s national insurance raid on our businesses. Having spoken with representatives of the UK’s beer and pub sector, there is no doubt that Labour’s rise in national insurance has had a huge impact on rural pubs. Just last week, Simon Emeny, the chairman of Fuller’s, said that pubs are facing “unprecedented” pressure from Labour’s tax rises. Given the nature of pub work, the lowering of the national insurance threshold has had a deep impact on publicans. Pubs are one of the major employers of young people. The sector employs 58% of its people on a part-time basis, which means that lowering the threshold has forced pubs to reconsider their hiring practices.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an interesting point. When publicans speak to me about taxes, they talk about their turnover either increasing or staying stable but the costs going up. The Government have to set out what they will do to improve the fiscal landscape for pubs, and for the hospitality industry more broadly. A lot has been made of Lord Milburn’s report on NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and the rise in the number of 16 to 24-year-olds in that category. Has the Minister considered the impact of these tax rises on pub-specific jobs? Some 51% of people working in pubs are under the age of 24, meaning that many are likely to be balancing working in the pub with other part-time commitments such as school or university. These new employment costs mean that publicans will think again about hiring staff on a part-time basis, driving many people into worklessness. The national insurance rise has had the single most damaging effect on the Saturday job. In addition to the crippling jobs tax, pubs are also suffering because of stifling increases in business rates. These policies threaten to be a huge—maybe even the final—nail in the coffin of many pubs that are really struggling. Analysis from UKHospitality has found that, by 2027-28, the average pub’s business rates will be £4,500 higher than they are today, rising to an astonishing £12,900 within three years, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief. I asked one of my staff members how much they paid for a pint of beer in one of the pubs in my constituency, and they said a pint of lager came to £7.50. That pub would have to sell an extra 1,720 pints just to offset the cost of those shocking tax increases. The Conservatives recognise the value of our pubs. We have pledged to scrap business rates for 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses because we recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses keep more of what they earn, allowing them to invest in the community rather than sending it back to central Government. I say to the Minister that Governments do not create growth or jobs; our businesses do. This announcement formed part of our larger campaign to get Britain working again, freeing up money for businesses to hire new people, often younger and always local. It would drive new jobs and economic growth across rural areas of the UK. Building on that, The Telegraph revealed last month that landlords will be hit with a “nice pub tax” under new guidelines. It found that HMRC has ordered officials to levy higher business rates on pubs that are in attractive locations or based in character properties. That is a complete disaster, and could mean that many pubs are forced—

• 2 Jun 2026 · Children: Development of Essential Skills · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan, and may there be many more. I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for opening the debate, and for his thoughtful contributions that we have heard throughout. I know that he is a long-standing champion of this issue, for which he made his case, and I am sure we will hear more from him. I also thank all Members across the House who made contributions. In particular, I want to single out the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who I thought made a really valid contribution. Having just welcomed my third child, and having seen the sacrifice that mums make, I can attest to the fact that she made some very valid points, and she will certainly get a lot of sympathy from me. My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about screen time. With three children under five, I can tell him that the battle of the screen time has already begun; I know the anguish that parents face, so I have a huge amount of sympathy. While I am always careful not to talk about silver bullets in politics, I believe that education is a silver bullet that can transform a child’s life and their chances. School is an essential part of a young person’s development, equipping them with the skills they need to succeed in life. The academic lessons we learn in the classroom prepare us for the world of work, and the social lessons we learn in school teach us so much that will be needed later in life. The official Opposition are very clear that our children deserve a first-class education, and I am proud that the previous Conservative Government delivered a world-class curriculum to facilitate that. Under previous Conservative Governments, England became one of the top performing countries in education; children in England were named the best in the west for reading, and we were ranked the best at maths in the western world in 2023, according to international standards. At the heart of those results was the previous Government’s rigorous curriculum, which raised standards and helped pupils soar up the international league tables. This debate has centred on some of the softer but equally important skills that a good education can instil in a young person. While I believe that we cannot underplay the importance of academic rigour, this debate plays a vital role in getting our young people ready for life—or the school of life, shall we say. There is no doubt that so much more needs to be done to ensure that our young people are equipped with the right essential skills. I would like to go back a few years. I believe that the pandemic played a huge role in some of the outcomes that our young people are facing. Many of them spent time away from home and outside the classroom, which really impacted on skills. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to comment on whether the Government should be working to fill those gaps and ensure that those people are supported into adulthood. The Opposition are clear that a rigorous curriculum that demands high standards is vital to developing critical skills, which is important in areas such as maths and literacy, and the previous Conservative Government are really proud of our legacy of driving up standards. However, I am concerned about some of the changes in the curriculum review. While I agree with many of its principles, I worry that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. I want to talk about the practical implementation of the curriculum to see whether the Minister can shed some light on it. We all want to see our children equipped with the skills that are needed in life. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about getting our children ready for the digital age, especially with the onset of AI and the waves of disinformation we are seeing online. As a former tech Minister, I share those concerns. I invite the Minister to discuss what she thinks the new curriculum will do to ensure that our children are ready for the advent of AI, as it is already upon us. Does she worry that we risk diluting the core education that I mentioned, which underpins our academic success and those high standards? What will be sacrificed to deliver some of that extra work? This will also be incredibly important because, as has been mentioned, the Government have decided to push down the voting age to 16. If millions of young people are enfranchised in that way, how will the Minister be confident that they will have the skills to engage in our democracy? How will they be encouraged to critically analyse the information they are given? In addition, I would like clarity from the Government on the time being taken away from core education. How will they ensure that time is given to the new aspects of the curriculum review to ensure that high standards are achieved? When the Government have been challenged previously by Opposition Members, they have not been forthcoming on that issue. Parents and students are anxious about how the reforms will change their education in the long term, so I invite the Minister to give a bit more clarity, specifically on the citizenship curriculum. As for teaching, what training will teachers require to be ready for those changes? On financial literacy and education, we can all recognise the benefits of ensuring that young people enter adulthood knowing how to manage their money. In 2023, the “Building Beyond Barriers” report by the all-party group on financial education for young people found that more than half of teachers did not know that financial education was already part of the curriculum. As the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made clear in a report last week, the importance of financial education cannot be overstated. That report found that “Four in ten people in the UK have poor financial literacy”, which is holding back our economy. The APPG’s report also found that one of the barriers to delivering financial education was a feeling that there is simply not enough time in the school year to deliver those lessons—a similar argument to the one I just made about citizenship lessons. So I ask the Minister: how will they be implemented? Other Members asked about the standards that will be expected. What assessments will be in place to make sure that the quality of the education is of the highest level? Focusing on core skills does make sense in this regard because good maths is a gateway to lifelong financial stability. That is not just my opinion; the programme for international student assessment found a strong correlation between performance in financial literacy and performance in mathematics. I have no doubt that our hard-working teachers are keen to play their part in delivering the skills education that we have discussed today in an appropriate way in the classroom. But a key part of that is innovation, and the Government’s compulsory curriculum risks inhibiting that innovation from teachers. The Government’s curriculum review praised innovation in teaching and made clear the benefits of flexibility for teachers, but I worry that the opposite will happen in practice. Lastly, in my regular meetings with stakeholders—both in education and industry— and when I have spoken to students, I hear time and again about the importance of better career support in schools. Understanding the world of work and what steps are needed to get to where a person wants to be in later life are essential. Young people are seeing profound and substantial changes in the world of work, none more so than the impact of AI on professional careers, such as accountancy and law. With that in mind, it is more important than ever that young people are equipped with the right skills to navigate a changing world of employment and the economy at large. I invite the Minister to elaborate on the work that she will do with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that young people get the quality career advice that they need. Children deserve a world-class curriculum that sets them up for the best possible chance in life. I support a knowledge-rich curriculum and will continue to urge the Government to answer some of the constructive questions that the Opposition have put forward. We all want to ensure that our young people have the best chances in life and also have the skills to live their lives and thrive.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  My communities in Balsall Common and Berkswell have taken huge amounts of pain since long before I was first elected in 2019. That pain has been exacerbated by the conduct of HS2 and its subcontractors towards communities. I have met Mark Wild, who knows my concerns about that. I take heart from the level of engagement he has given, and I hope that it continues. One of the key issues affecting my communities is the land being taken by HS2 that is yet to be released, including around Arden Cross—a project worth hundreds of millions of pounds that includes a health campus and is in conjunction with the local mayor, local councils and the University of Warwick. I am told that it might take four years, but I think it could be done in two years. Will the Secretary of State take a look at this issue?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I praise all Members for their contributions; while I did not agree with all of them, I recognise the passion with which they were delivered on topics that Members care about. In particular, I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that Labour is taking this country in the wrong direction, which is a sentiment agreed with by the newly former Health Secretary, who said in his resignation letter that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.” That is a damning indictment of a Government who are saying that they want to get Britain working again. The Conservatives are absolutely committed to getting Britain working again. We got a record 4 million more people in work between 2010 and 2024, which allowed millions more people to have the security of their own income, empowering them to own their own home and look after their families. [ Interruption. ] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but we created 800 new jobs a day in those 14 years. The situation has taken a dire turn since the change of Government. Since Labour took office, unemployment has risen to 5.2% and payroll jobs have reduced by 110,000. The Office for Budget Responsibility has even raised the unemployment rate forecast for 2026, 2027 and 2028. There is only one conclusion: Labour is letting people down and consigning more people on to welfare instead of good, honest work. I will focus particularly on young people and their prospects, where unfortunately an even bleaker picture is being painted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, who said that this Government are failing young people. I have heard a lot of Members talk about getting young people back into work, but the youth unemployment rate is 15.9%—up by 2.7% since the Labour party took office. It has been in power for two years, and that has been the consequence. One in six young people are now unable to find a job. This Government are pushing more young people on to benefits, which has deeper long-term consequences. There are now nearly 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. Among graduates, the Centre for Social Justice estimates that around 700,000 people are out of work and claiming benefits, and the impacts of that cannot be overstated. Every month spent out of work means that people take more than they give to the state. I have been campaigning in local elections across Meriden and Solihull East, and I can tell hon. Members that young people want to work, because there is dignity and hope in work. Every month that a young person spends out of a job makes it harder for them to get back into employment. While their peers are developing critical skills in the workplace, those out of work fall behind. It also weakens their ability to save and put money away for the future, making it harder—for example—to save for their first home, for their family or for their retirement. The number of young people out of work is a calamity, and the Government must do much more to address it, but nothing they have set out has reassured me that they understand that. The Employment Rights Act, passed in the previous parliamentary Session, has already started to have a catastrophic impact on the jobs market. That disastrous piece of legislation has increased costs for businesses and discouraged hiring, especially of young people. Having listened to the previous speech, I say to Labour Members that business owners are not just there to be squeezed until their pips squeak—they are the ones who take the risk, invest and create the jobs. I will, of course, also challenge the Government in the educational space, because I believe they have been completely ineffective. Just this week, the Prime Minister has made new pledges on apprenticeships and skills in an effort to turn his failing premiership around. Perhaps he recognises what I do, because from the data on apprenticeships, the picture is mixed at best. The Department responsible for work should be a shining example of the Government’s commitment to more apprenticeships, but regrettably, it is far from it—the number of apprenticeship starts at the DWP has actually fallen. The Government’s broken promises on apprenticeships are best shown in relation to level 7 qualifications, which are high-quality pathways— [Interruption.] I am talking about level 7 qualifications; the Secretary of State may want to pay attention. Those high-quality pathways allow people to get into professions such as accountancy, engineering and architecture without accumulating the same debt as graduates. However, the Government continue to restrict level 7 funding for those over 22, meaning that they are missing out on those opportunities and also putting level 6 apprenticeships at risk. [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State is very audible. In opposition, when she was shadow Education Secretary, she promised graduates that they would pay less under Labour. That has turned out to be nothing but another broken promise, because not only is it now harder for graduates to get into work, tuition fees have gone up twice. Those who are paying those fees are now doing so with no promise of valued work at the end of it all. I also want to address the SEND Bill—the education for all Bill—proposed in the King’s Speech. Given the time I have today, I do not have the luxury of asking all the questions that parents have wanted me to pose to the Government, but there are a couple of questions that I do want to ask. [ Interruption. ] I am happy to take an intervention from the Secretary of State.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  We created more than 5 million apprentices. If we want young people to be hired, we need an economy that works for the businesses that hire them. I am sure that the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, will be doing an excellent job in making sure that there is more investment in education and in young people. Alongside rebalancing the system, we are also looking to abolish real interest on plan 2 student loans, ending the unfair cycle whereby higher interest rates mean graduate debt rises faster than graduates can pay it off. Our proposals are much more comprehensive than those laid out by the Government. Labour’s plans to cap student loan repayments at 6% will leave graduates ripped off, paying interest above inflation. It shows that the Government do not have a plan for young people and will continue to tinker around the edges rather than make genuine, bold change. I will finish where I started, because the constant speculation about the Prime Minister’s future means that his Ministers will not be spending time looking at how to make a better deal for young people, whether that is boosting home ownership, reducing youth unemployment or getting the economy growing. In fact, just yesterday, I read reports of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), asking the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure. Now that the Health Secretary has resigned, I ask this Minister: does she support the Prime Minister?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think the hon. Member was paying attention. What I said was that I worry that the consultation is being stacked, but parents want to see the legislation, because there is not enough clarity in the consultation and they do not have the answers to the questions they are asking. I certainly hope that the parents the hon. Member meets make that clear to him. With little indication that the Government will set out comprehensive plans to support young people, the Opposition have been busy drawing up their own proposals for an alternative King’s Speech. We have laid out comprehensive plans to help recruit thousands of new apprentices. Our apprenticeship guarantee will remove the funding cap for apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds. This will ensure that employers have fully funded access to training, helping 100,000 extra young people into work every year. In addition, we would encourage more employers to take on 18 to 21-year-olds by introducing a business rebate for investment in training and skills, or BRITS scheme. It would provide a new incentive of up to £5,000 for businesses to take on 18 to 21-year-old apprentices. In the higher education space, the Conservatives have clear plans to rebalance the system. We have a proud record of expanding higher education, but we also recognise that more needs to be done to address the growth of low-value courses. Some degrees have ended up becoming a poor deal for both taxpayers and graduates. They do not help young people into work and the bill ends up being footed by taxpayers, some of whom have not benefited from a university education. That is why our alternative King’s Speech lays out plans to get more people into apprenticeships using money saved from cutting low value, low outcome degrees.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Young Adult Carers: Education and Training · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. He is proving to be a formidable parliamentarian and—I can say this as a friend—a decent human being, all in all. I also pay tribute to the young carers across our country. There are an estimated 1 million young carers aged up to 18 in the UK, with many carers aged under 10. I agree with my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I suspect we are of one mind; I remember the carers who come to see me in my surgeries. I remember their strength and resilience, but also how often they go about their responsibilities so quietly and unassumingly. From this debate, I want them to know that we in this House see them and that they matter. During this debate it is critical that we do not lose sight of the sacrifices that young carers make every single day. The responsibilities of caring mean that young people miss out on social plans, extracurricular activities and their schooling to help support those they care for. Young carers give time after school, at weekends, and live with the constant worry about the wellbeing of those under their care. Those are enormous burdens, especially for children. I want to reflect on some of the work done by the previous Government to support young carers. It was the view of the previous Government that young people should be protected from inappropriate and excessive caring responsibilities. We recognised that the important roles they played often went unnoticed, putting their education and childhood aside to care for others. We committed to amending the school census so that it included young carers. That raised the visibility of young carers in the school system and gave us a wealth of demographic evidence on the young carer population. That allowed schools to better understand the impact of caring in education, particularly on issues including attendance and absenteeism. In addition, the previous Government introduced the pupil premium in 2011. That gave schools additional funding to improve outcomes for children facing disadvantages, and helped young carers gain critical extra support. The previous Government also introduced bursaries to help with the cost of education, including travel, books, childcare and residential costs where needed. In the academic year 2023-24, more than £160 million of bursary funding was allocated to institutions to help disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds. Furthermore, the previous Government introduced the Young Carers in Schools programme, which addressed the need to ensure that schools do more to identify young carers and increase their engagement in school. The programme set out 10 key steps to help schools to identify and support young carers, and each step provides a key practical tool that can be adapted to support the individual school. Lastly, in 2018, the Conservatives published the carers action plan, which contains proposals to support young carers. It aimed to improve the identification of young carers, which built a rich and informative evidence base to better identify how support can be provided. As we have heard, despite that, young carers are still under extreme pressure. In all our constituencies, there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of young carers. In the borough of Solihull, of which is my constituency is part, the average age of a young carer is 11 and it is estimated that one in five young people is a carer. Although there are fantastic organisations that do excellent work in raising awareness about young carers and what they go through, including Solihull Young Carers, debates such as this are critical in raising awareness among parliamentarians. Young carers often put their lives on hold for others. They are responsible for cooking, cleaning, supporting with schoolwork and many more tasks, as has already been laid out in this debate. That makes their lives a constant battle, balancing an array of different possibilities. In the education and training context, balancing schoolwork can be particularly hard. It is all too easy to put off that bit of homework because you have had to be up early to care and just want to catch up on a bit of sleep or get some well-deserved rest. The Carers Trust’s most recent report from January highlights the concerning fact that three quarters of young adult carers say that their caring roles make it difficult to take part in training or educational opportunities. That research shows that young carers are missing on average 23 days of school every year—one month in total. Come secondary school, over half of young carers are persistently absent. Some of the information we have on this topic is down to the previous Government and our steps to better identify young carers in school settings. I am more than happy to work on a cross-party basis to help our young carers. What work is the Minister doing to help add to the data? What conversations is he having with school leaders to ensure that we build on this important evidence base? The evidence shows that young people who care are missing out on available learning opportunities. In reality, that means they will be struggling to keep up with their peers and will fall behind for the rest of their lives. When it comes to taking exams, the time spent out of the classroom will no doubt mean that their grades are lower than their peers’. What steps are the Government taking to help support young carers in school settings? What plans does the Minister have in that regard? We have heard today that the Carers Trust has proposed that every school has a young carer lead—a point made by the hon. Member for Harlow. Has the Minister considered that? Will it be part of the Government’s plans going forward? While in Opposition, the now Education Secretary said: “a Labour Government would ensure that young carers’ voices, needs and rights and the support that should be made available to them are taken seriously.” —[ Official Report , 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 206.] I noted that in the post-16 education and skills White Paper—this has been mentioned to me by a number of carers—there were no references to young carers. Would the Minister be able to explain his thinking? Perhaps it is to do with the Milburn report, which he might want to elaborate on. In response to a written question about additional support for young carers in schools, the Minister for School Standards stated: “The Government is preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers which we plan to publish later this year.” On behalf of the Opposition, I ask the Minister whether he will be able to expand on the timeframe for that and what the key principles in those plans will be. In November 2025, the Government commissioned Alan Milburn to author a report into the number of people not in education, employment or training, and part of that will include a call for evidence from parents and carers for young people. Given the pressures that young carers are facing, it is essential that that inquiry finds ways to better support young carers in education and training. I am sure the Minister will agree that young carers cannot be left behind at school, because the knock-on effects are substantial, and it will lead to more young carers struggling to get into work. Does he recognise the correlation between NEET numbers and the number of young carers? Will he highlight the engagement he has had with the DWP in that regard? We have heard some excellent speeches. Once again, I praise the hon. Member for Harlow, who set out the case for young carers so eloquently. I finish by paying tribute to young carers, who give up so much to care for those in need. Every single one of them makes an amazing sacrifice. I hope that many of them are watching, and that they recognise that we think they should be very proud of themselves. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Apprenticeships should be the building blocks of a stronger economy. That is why the Conservatives are pledging to double the number. If the Minister has done his homework, he will know that any increase in apprenticeship numbers is due to the last-minute rush to do level 7, which this Government cancelled. In fact, if level 7 apprenticeships are stripped out of the figures, apprenticeship vacancies are at their lowest since 2020. With youth unemployment at an all-time high and apprenticeship vacancies at their lowest, it is time for the Minister to come clean: this Government are failing young people, are they not?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Cost of Living: Students · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister said, on 23 March the Department told universities that weekend courses do not qualify for funding. The Student Loans Company’s own guidance changed only this year, and the issue affected 20,000 students, including those in key professions, such as nurses. The Secretary of State has been taken to court by nine universities, the National Union of Students is demanding that she halt her clawback, and Martin Lewis has said that this is an almighty mess. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know that this Government always find someone else to blame, so will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped and that payments will not be demanded from innocent students?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is very little detail in the White Paper around deliverability. That concern has been raised to me by a number of council leaders, headteachers and parents. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains “uncertain”. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty, but the OBR is not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gap. When the Labour party was in opposition, it had 14 years to think about what it wanted to do, so I hope that the Minister can provide some of those answers today. The issue of timelines was raised during the debate. We all agree that the reforms are urgently needed, but full implementation is not expected until 2028-29 at the earliest. Changes to EHCPs will not begin until around September 2030, so a child who is now six will be 10 or 11 before they and their family feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). Will the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHCP reform takes effect?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging and passionate debate about an issue that affects each and every one of us, and many of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. He has been a passionate and determined champion for parents of children with special educational needs, and I thank him for all his hard work in this area. He was pragmatic and constructive, and he reflected what I have also heard from many parents, teachers and council leaders. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, specifically the parents who have reached out to have their voices heard today. This issue affects each and every one of us. While I will focus on the much-delayed White Paper, let me be clear to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work constructively with the Government where we see that meaningful progress can be made. I acknowledge that the system is creaking under its own weight. Since I was elected in 2019, almost weekly I have met parents who are tired of fighting a system that was designed to help them and that enshrines their rights in law, but has become a barrier to supporting their children. I have campaigned for those parents, so I want these reforms to work, but I say to the Minister that Opposition Members will not shy away from asking questions that are difficult for the Government to answer. We will not allow the Government to spin their way out of this, because too much is at stake. I hope that she can work constructively with me in that spirit.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to councils and their funding shortly, but my right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. I hope the Minister heard him and will be able to provide an answer. A number of parents have written to me, asking if I can put their questions directly to the Minister. Natasha and Lindy want to know why a dilution of parental rights has been proposed. Why are the Government removing the legal right to appeal, especially when 98% of cases are currently won by parents and carers? My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made this point very eloquently. If the logic is to reduce the cost of provision by removing some of those rights, the Minister should say so plainly. Parents need that clarity and that level of honesty. We do welcome some points, including the principle of support in schools, evidence-led packages, and the idea of more speech and language therapists. There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is essential, and a statement of intent on that is most welcome. I want to focus briefly on speech and language therapists, because I campaigned on this issue as a Back-Bench MP with my constituent Mikey Akers and the famous footballer Chris Kamara. We met the relevant Health Minister more than a year ago; as Mikey said, in March 2024, he met the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who promised an action plan for speech and language therapy, but more than one year on we still have not seen anything. A point has been raised about liaising with the Department of Health and Social Care. Has the Minister spoken to the Health Minister? Has there been any progress? The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has been very clear that delivering the Experts at Hand service will require an SLT workforce to be incorporated into the 10-year workforce plan, with ringfenced funding. In a written question in March, I asked the Minister how many speech and language therapists will be required to deliver the Experts at Hand service. She gave a great answer, but she avoided giving me the answer that I needed on numbers, so I hope she can answer how many specialists will be needed and where they will come from. The British Dyslexia Association has also posed a question to me. One in three children in our classrooms need support for dyslexia. Will the Minister confirm whether the Experts at Hand service will include support for children with dyslexia, and whether specialist dyslexia teachers will form part of that workforce? Let me turn to inclusion in the mainstream. At a recent meeting with Solihull school leaders last month, I heard serious concerns about the capacity pressures that the Government’s approach could place on mainstream schools. There was consensus around the principles, but there was also consensus that far more detail is needed on what inclusion actually means in policy terms and how gaps in staff training and funding will be filled.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to take part in this debate on play in the key stage 1 curriculum. First, I thank the 106,082 signatories of this petition, including the 200 signatories from my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her opening remarks, and I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a very happy birthday, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sure that is all he ever wanted. I praise the contributions from all hon. Members. It has been a thoughtful debate, which covered a whole array of issues. We may not agree on all aspects, I found it very fruitful to consider the different points of view. In particular, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who made an excellent contribution, highlighting the need for consistency; I echo her question for the Minister on that point. Having heard hon. Members at length today, it is quite clear that we all accept that play has an important role in children’s cognitive and social development, particularly in their early years. There is strong evidence to suggest that play is an important factor in a child’s development. It teaches young people resilience, problem solving and social skills, enhances cognitive development and so much more. Dr David Whitebread of the University of Cambridge argues: “Play in all its rich variety is one of the highest achievements of the human species, alongside language, culture and technology. Indeed, without play, none of these other achievements would be possible.” That is why the early years foundation stage statutory framework includes play in delivering learning and development. The official Opposition support that framework, which sets out this responsibility for early years education providers. As a father of two young children, I recognise the importance of play. I know that key stage 1 is a crucial time in a child’s learning and development, when children are set up for future academic success based on the foundation of knowledge and learning skills they receive when they first start school. It is thanks to the knowledge-rich curriculum, underpinned by phonics, introduced by the last Government under the excellent leadership of Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb, that primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world, with 80% of six-year-olds now reaching the expected reading standard, compared with only 58% in 2012. Millions more children are in good or outstanding schools, with tougher exams, better teaching standards, a rigorous curriculum and thousands of new academies. I say that because, having heard the debate, it is important to be clear about what we are discussing. While play should certainly be part of that delivery, we believe that schools are best placed to decide how the curriculum is delivered to their pupils, and it is important that precious time in the classroom is not missed out on. I know that many hon. Members have pointed out that that is not what they are talking about, but there must be clarity about how play is delivered, because we all agree that we are preparing our children for the future. That desire for freedom is why the official Opposition strongly oppose parts of the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that restrict academy freedoms and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Why does the Education Secretary think that centralising decision making in Whitehall is more effective than empowering school leaders? The transfer of power from headteachers to unelected officials at the Department will be deeply damaging for children, and will see their education suffer as a result. It is not just the Conservatives who believe this. It was Sir Tony Blair whose Government championed the initial academisation of schools. I know he is greatly concerned about this, because it is a reversal of 30 years of consensus around academic achievement and development. Although we also welcome the curriculum review, I have worries. It was a relief that the Government chose not to follow the example of their counterparts in Labour-run Wales by dropping phonics from the curriculum. However, as the Opposition have stated at the Dispatch Box, if everything is a priority, nothing is. If the Government want more play, they need to make clear which part of the curriculum has to be pushed to the side, and will stand to suffer, as a result. If the Government truly want to give children the freedom to learn and grow through play, they should confirm that they are committed to ensuring that the core skills of reading, writing and numeracy, which children need to succeed, will be part of that. If more play is needed for children, there is another way of achieving that. I would like to talk about the use of screens by children. According to Ofcom, 25% of children—

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, Mrs Barker. The point that I was going to make was that if children are not using social media, that will free up more time for play. That is why that issue is really important. We all want to achieve the same things: more resilience and more capability. Hopefully the Minister will confirm whether the Government agree with us that the use of screens at such a young age can have a detrimental effect, and confirm whether they will progress with the evidence. I accept that many parents are simply trying to do their best, and they want to have the best opportunities for their children. That is why I implore the Government to take a deep, hard look at the official Opposition’s approach to the use of screens and social media, and to the use of phones in schools. We have called for the use of phones in schools to be officially banned to allow for greater standards in schools. We are worried about the fact that children now spend more time online. Just last week I read reports that some young people try to swipe, and even tap, on books because they use digital devices.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and those people who signed the petition. The Opposition recognise the importance of play, which is why we challenge the Government to give further clarity on the development of the curriculum review, and what will be part of it. If everything is a priority, nothing is, so what will be part of that debate? I also challenge the Government to give more clarity about the freedom of schools, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I made that very clear. We support the education statutory framework as it is, but I think that the questions around social media and the use of phones are really pertinent. That is what parents are writing to us, as Members of Parliament—

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND: High-quality School Places · Hansard source

  More

  That example, and the example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), illustrates Labour Government spin perfectly. That £3 billion is short-changing parents and children with special educational needs. The decision to cut schools was rolled out without scrutiny, slipped out before the Christmas recess. Some 46 free schools and 18 special schools have been axed, with a further 59 in doubt. Why did the Secretary of State cancel the much-needed special schools and make life harder for families and children with SEND?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Gender Questioning: Guidance in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  That was a disappointing answer. The Government have been hiding behind the Cass review, which was published more than two years ago, for months. In April last year, the Education Secretary promised to publish the guidance by the end of the year, to give schools and teachers much needed clarity on these sensitive issues. That deadline has been spectacularly missed, and schools have been left in limbo to figure this out themselves. I implore the Secretary of State and the ministerial team to put ideology aside and finally act to protect our children. Will they do that?

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Funding Shortfall · Hansard source

  More

  I note that the Minister, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), said that the Budget gave much clarity, but the reality is that the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis highlighted a £6 billion funding gap. I almost feel sorry for the Education team, because the Chancellor has backed them into an uncomfortable corner with her own Back Benchers with nowhere to turn, but they do need to be honest with parents and teachers who rely on these provisions. So again we ask: how do they intend to fill the £6 billion black hole hanging over the Department? Will there be cuts to services or to schools?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bring to the House an issue of grave concern. At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister how many more teachers there were since the Education Secretary came into office in 2024. The Prime Minister replied that there were “More than when the Conservatives left office”. The Department for Education’s website makes it clear that the Prime Minister was wrong: there are 400 fewer teachers under Labour. This is more than an inaccuracy, and it is exactly why the public lose faith in our parliamentary democracy. Can you advise on how the Prime Minister can come to the House and correct the record?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker, and to speak in this very important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his opening remarks, and Michelle Zaher and all 166,498 signatories of this important petition, including 250 of my constituents. The petition calls on the Education Secretary to withdraw the disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and states: “We believe the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is poorly drafted and does not stem from robust evidence. We feel the accompanying impact assessments are inadequate and may damage all children’s educational opportunities. We believe the Bill is silent on children’s voice and children’s right to education. We also feel part 2 undermines parental responsibility for education and school leaders from ensuring their educational settings can optimise children’s education and wellbeing.” I cannot fault that damning verdict, which summarises many of the huge inadequacies that are part of this woeful piece of legislation. I am clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition share no enthusiasm for the parts of this Bill relating to schools in particular. To put our views simply, this legislation will trample over two decades of cross-party consensus that has seen the quality of an English child’s schooling improve at a rate of knots. It is beyond question that the previous Government drove up school standards across the country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made that point very eloquently. By the time the Conservatives left office in 2024, English schoolchildren were some of the best in the western world at English and maths. Moreover, 90% of our schools were rated good or outstanding, up from 68% when Labour were last in office. It is a record we are fiercely proud of, because those changes have benefited children across the country, have driven up social mobility and have given more young people the chance to succeed. This legacy is of enormous significance, but it is under great threat because of this woeful legislation. The overwhelming consensus over the past 20 years—started by Tony Blair and improved by Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb—has demonstrated the profound benefits of giving schools and local trusts greater autonomy. The political consensus that created free schools, a knowledge-rich curriculum and academisation has brought enormous benefits. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill ends that consensus. It is an act of pure educational vandalism that, tragically, is not backed up by any evidence that suggests it will improve school standards. In 2024, academies represented 80% of secondary schools and nearly 43% of primary schools. They have been at the heart of the cross-party effort over the past two decades to improve schooling. We know that headteachers are better equipped to design curricula that benefit their students and communities, and they should be empowered to do so. The fact the Government disagree with that, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting otherwise, speaks volumes. The petition challenges this educational vandalism. It makes it clear that the impact assessments are totally inadequate and fail to show how effectively removing academy status will improve school standards. Of course, the official Opposition are not alone in our objection to the Bill’s provisions to effectively end the academies project. The Confederation of School Trusts is very concerned about the provisions that seek to remove the academy freedoms that have so greatly improved our education system. Even Lord Harris of Haringey, a Labour peer, has raised his concerns. He is on the record as saying that he cannot express his disappointment at what the Government propose in the Bill, and that it will “undermine everything that so many people have fought so hard to achieve.” The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, who is a former headteacher and the co-founder of the Inspiration multi-academy trust, has criticised the Bill, saying that Ministers are “legislating against the things we know work in schools”. As has been alluded to, even Amanda Spielman, a former head of Ofsted, has called on the Education Secretary to abandon her plans “before the damage is done”. Does the Minister take seriously those concerns, and the concerns of the 166,498 signatories? What will she do about them? Before the Education Secretary imposes her union-backed policies on English schoolchildren, I remind Members present about Labour’s record in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made an excellent speech in which he highlighted Labour’s track record, which reinforces the importance of the petition we are debating. Children over the border are being let down by Labour-run Wales. Welsh children have been unable to experience the same revolution in school standards that we have seen in England. The Welsh education system is far behind the rest of the UK in the international league tables. As Onward’s “Devolved to Fail” report makes clear, Wales is a huge outlier. The UK is ranked 14th among OECD countries in the PISA tables, but were Wales to be ranked as an individual country, it would come just above Vietnam, in 34th place. England moved to a rich, knowledge-based curriculum, while Wales continued to use a skills-based one. England introduced academies; Wales resisted and paid the price. Attainment in Welsh schools has stagnated so much that the average Welsh pupil performs only as well as the most disadvantaged pupils in England. I also want to address the issue of homeschooling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). As a parent, I believe in the liberty of parents to choose the best options for their children, but I also recognise that there is a balance to be struck, especially when it comes to safeguarding. The sad case of Sara Sharif has been raised; I draw the Minister’s attention to the amendment tabled by Baroness Barran in the other place, which states that if there is or has ever been a child protection plan, or if a child is in need, there must be local authority consent for them to be withdrawn from school. Will the Minister share her reflections on that amendment? I trust she is willing to work on a cross-party basis. I want to put on record my concerns about the proposed three-item cap on children’s school uniform, which is being advanced without due consideration of the harm it could cause to families, schools and businesses. As has been mentioned, it could actually inflate prices. The Government claim that the cap will make schools fairer, but the limit could also put pressure on pupils to wear the latest fashions, which often end up being much more expensive than a uniform. The practicalities are also significant, as has been raised in some of the meetings I have had on the issue, because the cap will cause nightmares for PE teachers and children playing sports. Will the Minister clarify the issues in respect of PE? In addition, the relevant part of the Bill will do significant damage to the specialist schoolwear sector, which has significant concerns. Let me present some of the constructive steps that the official Opposition have taken to improve the flawed Bill. We have tabled several amendments that are aimed at preventing harm and improving educational outcomes, including in respect of proposals to ban smartphones during the school day; to ensure automatic exclusions for the possession of a knife, for sexual assault or for the assault of a teacher; and to move pupils who are permanently excluded twice out of mainstream settings. Banning smartphones would help to address the behaviour issues we see in schools, including social media-driven knife crime and the impact on attainment. The Bill needs to be looked at again. There are some areas that the official Opposition can support, but overall, it is a wrecking ball that destroys 20 years of educational consensus and achievement. Today’s petition is therefore extremely important, and I thank all the people who signed it. I hope the Minister can do them justice and reflect on some of the arguments I have made today.

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

  More

  I am not trying to catch the Minister out here; perhaps she could write to me afterwards for clarity. She talks about a common-sense approach, but we are making it concrete in legislation. On the requirement for three branded items, would the school be in breach? Would the parents be in breach? What happens in that situation?