Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I find it disgusting. What Epstein did was absolutely disgusting in its own right: he trafficked, he was a child sex offender, and in many ways he was a coward in how he left this world. I wish he had faced the full force of the law. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about enablers and the role that powerful men played. I say to Labour Members that they are at a crossroads. If they really care about Epstein’s victims, they need to ask how this was allowed to happen. By the way, it is not just about Mandelson and Epstein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) made a point about Bill Gates. I watched the video of Melinda Gates yesterday, and I was talking to my wife about how horrible it must have been to see the emails and what he was up to. My hon. Friend also mentioned Richard Branson. The reality is that there is clearly a culture of men who thought they were above the law, and the DOJ is grappling with that issue over in America. We have talked about some very important things in today’s debate, for which I commend hon. Members, but we have to be honest about the fact that this matter came on to our shores. It is possible that there are victims whom we still do not know about, and that criminal investigations still need to happen. I need an assurance from Ministers that if that comes to the fore, the Government will act quickly to make sure that criminal investigations are started. The public require that to help us on the journey towards rebuilding trust, and we should not underestimate the need for that.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend, although I have to say that was one of his shortest speeches. We come here for a serious matter of the utmost gravity. I have heard a number of good speeches from all parts of the House, including Members on the Government Benches. I commend all those Members who have stood up and said that they are not happy with the Government’s position. That is not an easy thing to do. I am pleased that there is now a manuscript amendment that will force the Government’s hand and ensure that the ISC has a pivotal and critical role. A number of observations have been made today, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. I did agree with a great many of them, but a couple of Members said that the Government had demonstrated leadership in getting to this point. They did not demonstrate leadership. They got here because they were dragged here; they got here because there had been a dump of documents by the Department of Justice, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion that forced their hand, and they finally had to confront the fact that Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Epstein for much longer than many of us knew—although certainly the Prime Minister knew, as we found out earlier today. The idea that the Government have demonstrated leadership is for the birds. I have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about the victims of Epstein, but I say to Labour Members that those are just words if they are not followed up with action. Although the ISC amendment is important, it is not the end of the journey. For months the Conservatives have been pushing for clarity so that we can discover the truth about what was going on with Lord Mandelson’s appointment. This goes to the heart of our politics. What did we find out today when the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister? He had run out of road and finally had to come clean about the fact that he knew about this relationship. As for the idea that we need to know the depth of the relationship, let me ask Labour Members this: how deep does a relationship with a paedophile need to be before it becomes eligible for declaration?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the hon. Member called me her hon. Friend; I accept such an accolade. I agree with trial by jury, as stated in the motion—it has validity in where it is in place—and Opposition Members think that reducing it, as the Government propose, without any assessment or guarantee of numbers, is wrong. The hon. Member and many other Labour Members set out a number of ways—albeit in a party political guise—in which we could reduce the backlog, but the reality is, the Government are not even talking about those seriously; they are talking about reducing jury trials. I was here when the Justice Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they would reduce jury trials to reduce the backlog. Those two things do not go hand in hand. That is why there is cross-party opposition as well as opposition from judges and all sorts of organisations, including the Criminal Bar Association, which says that this will not achieve what the Government want it to. A constituent of mine—a local barrister who sees this day in, day out—wrote to me about improvements in sitting days. He wants to see investment in sitting days, and the Conservatives have called for that. We have also called for prisoner transport services to be on time, as well as—I think the Minister referred to some of these points—the targeted removal of cases that can no longer be prosecuted and, of course, investment in basic court infrastructure. If all those issues had been assessed and invested in, there may even have been cross-party support, as offered by the shadow Justice Secretary. I was surprised by the Minister’s tone; she then made the glaring admission that this change would have happened anyway. This is about big statist ideology, undermining trial by jury. We continue to hear, as we did from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), that this proposal will undermine fairness in the system. Fundamental to this, in my view, is arrogance. There is arrogance in saying, “Actually, lawyers will know better than juries.” The whole nature of trial by jury is not about expecting an individual juror to have expertise in everything; it is about collective decision making that takes away bias and discrimination. No Government Members can guarantee that an individual judge—as neutral as they must be and as professional as they are—will not demonstrate those biases. That is the point we are making: the Government’s plan undermines one of the most fundamental individual liberties that we rely on in society.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point that we have to take into consideration. The Minister will not be able to give anyone the reassurance they deserve, which is why many of our constituents are so upset about this. Let us be very clear about the reason we are here. The fundamental issue is that a beleaguered Prime Minister has rolled out this gimmick as nothing more than a way to stop the boats. The fact of the matter is that since Labour came into government, we have had 62,000 illegal crossings. The ID that we have in place already has not stopped them, and neither will digital ID. This gimmick has not fooled voters, and it did not fool the 3 million people who signed the petition. They can see clearly through it. First and foremost, our constituents require honesty. This will not stop the boats. I also want to address a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about shops selling illegal vapes. Mechanisms for IDs are already in place, but that is still happening, so digital ID will not stop it either. What he was arguing for, whether he knew it or not, was overarching powers of intervention for the police into the private accounts of private individuals. That is the only way in which they will be able to intervene. What they need to do is investigate, like they always do.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Let me address that point. The problem that the hon. Gentleman poses will not be solved by digital ID—I fundamentally disagree with him about that—because HMRC already has the powers to investigate people selling illegal cigarettes, as do the police. That is why the Government have lauded the fact that there were raids just a few months ago, and closures of some of these shops. He is creating a straw-man argument that is not solved by digital ID. Let us be under no illusion about this proposal. It opens the door to tyranny, whether it is tyranny today or tyranny tomorrow. The Minister cannot confirm that a future Government—a future Labour Government, perhaps, if that is even possible—will not take advantage of digital ID.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice?

• 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.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I can attest to the fact that many British Jews do not feel safe, especially in Birmingham. I take the Minister at her word that she takes this very seriously. When I stood up and spoke about the issue, I received torrents of abuse for doing so, but I did so because I thought it was clear that the decision was wrong: it was bad for the people of the west midlands, bad for Aston Villa fans, bad for British Muslims—some of whom wrote to me expressing concern that they had been dragged into it—and, of course, terrible for British Jews. The Minister said that she could not comment on the evidence having been made up. Has she read the Dutch report, does she knowledge that the stories over the weekend have further upset British Jews, and will she ensure that West Midlands police are held to account?

• 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.

• 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.