Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Music Education
(2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of music education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music education.
Music has the power to move us and stir our soul. We marvel at a captivating song or composition when we hear it for the first time, and we are transported back in time when we hear a long-forgotten evocative melody. A world without music would be empty and barren: that is why we need to value music and do everything we can to protect its long-term future. Key to that is music education. It brings many benefits to students, aside from the ability to play an instrument or make music: building confidence, improving learning skills, fostering teamwork, increasing concentration, strengthening discipline, inspiring creativity and equipping individuals with the transferable skills necessary to succeed in life. But there is a crisis in music education in our schools, and if we are to reverse it we need to start with the basics.
The number of students who receive music tuition in schools is falling rapidly, and schools are no longer encouraging students to pursue a music GCSE. There is a worrying decline in the recruitment and retention of music teachers. Music hubs are being financially stretched, and music education funding remains at a standstill. Music education should be accessible for everyone, but at present it is becoming inaccessible to those who cannot afford to take private lessons or take part in extracurricular music activities. It is no accident that the finalists in this year’s BBC young musician contest were all privately educated.
Many older musicians tell me that they became musicians because of the encouragement and inspiration that they received from music teachers when they were young, and the pathways that were open to them to progress and pursue their talent. We are struggling to meet recruitment targets for music teachers, however, and many teachers are leaving the profession altogether. The Department for Education has missed its recruitment targets for music teachers in 11 of the past 12 years. In 2011 there were 8,000 music teachers, but in 2023 the number was 7,184—a decrease of nearly 1,000.
The situation is even worse for peripatetic music teachers, who are on low pay and precarious contracts. We have also struggled to meet the recruitment target for postgraduate initial teacher training in music: we have met it only once since 2015. Last year, just 27% of the target was met. Additionally, the financial incentives to train as a music teacher are severely lacking. While trainee geography teachers receive a bursary of £25,000, trainee music teachers are entitled to a bursary of just £10,000.
The retention of teachers is also an issue. Key stage 5 music has experienced a workforce decline of 35% in the past 13 years, while taught hours have fallen by 40%, indicating that qualifications such as A-level music are not being offered in school as key stage 5 options for young people. That is why Ofsted’s 2023 music subject report says that some schools have dropped music altogether because they cannot recruit specialist teachers. In other schools, music is now taught by a non-specialist, which is a very worrying trend.
One suggestion to improve the recruitment and retention of music teachers is to implement strategies to bridge the gap between trainee music teachers and early career teachers, given the significant recruitment shortfalls over the past 12 years. On recruitment, the Government should commit to increasing the size of the initial teacher training bursary so that it is in line with other subjects. Currently, the initial teacher training bursaries for trainee music teachers are nearly a third of what is offered to trainee chemistry, maths or computing teachers. Being a music teacher should once again be an attractive career option for music graduates.
I have been working closely with the Ed Sheeran Foundation over the past few months. One of its key asks is that we urgently train 1,000 specialist music teachers to close the recruitment gap and make sure that students across the country can access music tuition. We need to make sure that there is at least one specialist music teacher in every school by the end of this Parliament.
Access to continuing professional development for music teachers in state schools is a serious challenge and is crucial to the quality of music education offered, yet recruitment is struggling badly. In 2024-25, only 331 of the 820 training places for secondary music teachers were filled, leaving a massive 60% shortfall. There are nearly 600 fewer music teachers than there were a decade ago. Investing in focused, reflective CPD is a vital step to bridging that gap and improving music education for all students.
With recruitment falling, and with an exodus of specialist music teachers, there is a severe inequality between state and independent schools in children’s access to music education. According to UK Music, 50% of children in independent schools receive substantial music tuition, compared with just 15% in state schools. The Education Policy Institute found that disadvantaged pupils are 39% less likely than non-disadvantaged pupils to take music at GCSE.
Funding for music education in English state schools is severely lagging behind the independent sector. The Independent Society of Musicians report on music education found that the mean yearly budget in maintained schools’ music departments was just £1,865; in independent schools it was nearly £10,000. It is clear that music in state schools, where the majority of children are educated, is facing significant difficulties with access and inclusion.
That is made worse by the fact that there is no accountability mechanism for schools to teach music. The mechanism for calculating school league tables, Progress 8, heavily incentivises schools to prioritise English baccalaureate subjects at GCSE, which exclude arts subjects entirely. This is creating a two-tier system within schools, with subjects like music deprioritised in the curriculum. The evidence supports this: GCSE music entries have fallen by 30% and A-level music entries have fallen by 43% since the EBacc was introduced in 2010.
Music hubs are another key area in need of reform. They support music teaching in schools, typically through instrumental lessons and whole-class instrument tuition, but they also do incredible work outside the school curriculum. I have had the pleasure of seeing that work at first hand at the Haringey music service’s “Mini Massive” concert, at which year 4 children from schools across Haringey come together and perform at Alexandra Palace every year at the end of 30 weeks of whole-class instrumental lessons.
However, since the publication of the second national plan for music education in 2022, music hubs have faced significant funding challenges. The plan promised to maintain funding levels until August 2025, yet no additional resources were allocated to cover rising costs, including teacher pension contributions, despite a clear Government commitment in 2019 to supporting them.
There are many good things in the national plan for music, but it is in urgent need of an update. A clear steer is needed from the new Government. Arts Council England’s guidance made it clear that there would be no additional ringfenced funding for pensions, effectively slashing over £1 million in crucial support. On top of that, the rushed consultation process for the plan led to a reduction from 80 hubs to just 43, increasing administrative burdens without evidence that access to music education would improve. The delayed announcement of successful funding bids, which came only in April 2024, left hubs with a mere four months to implement major changes, further straining limited resources. The ongoing uncertainty and underfunding risk undermining the vital role that music hubs play in enabling access to music education across the country.
I am sure we all agree that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue, so what needs to be done? Funding levels for music education have been roughly the same for the last decade, which represents a significant real-terms cut. The Government’s plans to increase spending for state schools are welcome, but they must make it clear how much additional funding will be allocated to music.
Music hubs need urgent reform and better funding, because without sustainable support they simply cannot provide equitable access to music education for all children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many hubs that cover more than one local authority area complain about the duplication of paperwork, which is adding to the pressures of ensuring that quality music services are delivered at a local level. The lack of central co-ordination means that any data collected by the hubs is not properly collated. Additionally, music hubs need the certainty of long-term funding. I know that the Government are looking to give local authorities financial settlements that go beyond a year; perhaps the same can be applied to hubs.
To truly reform music hubs, we need improved, detailed and long-term data collection that reflects the diverse musical experiences of young people and local contexts, enabling strategic, targeted funding to support meaningful, high-quality music education across all regions. The announcement of a new national centre for arts and music education presents a good opportunity to make a positive contribution to the development of music education across the state sector, particularly in secondary schools. However, the uncertainty about what it is, what funding will be made available and who will run it is undermining its credibility. The Government are undertaking public engagement on the national centre, but greater clarity would be welcome.
Most people involved in music education cite the EBacc and the Progress 8 measure as a barrier to music education and in urgent need of reform. Since the introduction of those accountability measures, schools have been under significant pressure to prioritise other subjects, and music education has been left behind. Research shows a decline in the uptake and provision of music education in schools since the EBacc was introduced, with disadvantaged students most affected.
Many in the sector suggest that, as a minimum, a creative or vocational qualification should be introduced in Progress 8, as was previously pledged in the “Creating growth” plan in the Government’s manifesto. I was recently visiting friends in France and was surprised to discover that philosophy is a compulsory subject there until the age of 18, as part of the baccalaureate. If it can be done in France for philosophy, we should be able to do it in the UK for music and creative subjects.
The curriculum assessment review is due to report later this year, and although it is narrowly focused, it is vital that it address the issue. I am sure that Professor Becky Francis and her team are doing great work, but I hope that as a result of the curriculum review, creative subjects will be given greater prominence in the school curriculum. By reforming the accountability system, the Government can ensure that music thrives in state schools and gives high-quality music education to pupils from the most deprived backgrounds.
Many amazing things are happening in music education. Last week, I saw work that the London Sinfonietta had done in getting local schools in Enfield to create their own musical composition, which was then performed by the London Sinfonietta’s excellent musicians—many thanks to the Enfield music service for co-ordinating that performance. I know that the Minister is a big music fan, as she and I recently attended the wonderful BrightSparks key stage 1 lunchtime concert performed by the London Philharmonic Orchestra in front of a packed house of children at the Royal Festival Hall. It was a wonderful concert, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The English National Opera and many other fantastic music organisations also do incredible outreach work with schools, but if we do not get more direction and leadership from the Government, I fear that the ball will be dropped and we will not get the change that we want.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, what steps are the Government taking, including on terms and conditions for peripatetic teachers, to attract and retain more music teachers? Will more support be provided for music hubs, along with the review of their work, including the impact of the bureaucracy that they face? Can the Minister tell us whether the now outdated national plan for music—it was last updated in 2022—will be refreshed under the new Government? If so, when? Can she also tell us more about progress on the national centre for arts and music education and when it is likely to be up and running? Can she tell us of any plans to review the English baccalaureate and Progress 8? Can she tell us when the curriculum assessment review is likely to report back with its final findings? Finally, will she meet me and representatives from music education to discuss the progress of music education?
For many people, the music that they are taught in school is their only exposure to the discipline, yet the availability and quality of music education has suffered greatly in the past decade and a half. We need to fix that and ensure that music education thrives under this Labour Government and has a bright long-term future, enriching all our lives.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this incredibly important debate. It is vital that we discuss these issues in this House. I am one of those few MPs who has found a happy middle ground between orchestra and hip-hop. I will go into a bit of detail on that: I learned the violin from the age of seven, played in orchestras, and latterly ended up playing in rock bands—not playing the violin, but playing the guitar and the keyboard, and singing.
I know from personal experience that a background in music improves many aspects of our lives, such as discipline and creativity. It actually teaches people the value of hard work towards an objective, and it provides both hard and soft skills. I sometimes say to people—I mean this with no disrespect—that all too often music is regarded as sitting around the campfire singing “Kumbaya”. I am all in favour of doing that—indeed, I have done so. However, it is far more than that; it is so much more than the mere pleasure and enjoyment of creating the music. It is a stable bedrock to build one’s life on, but I fear that over the past 14 years the opportunity to do so has been stripped back by Conservative Governments.
Students of Paddox primary school tell me that their music department budget has been steadily eroded, and most of the existing music activities are the result of the passionate and dedicated music teacher, Mrs Pearson. A priority of mine as an MP is to give more of a voice to young people, so I am glad to do that. Vanessa from Paddox primary school’s student council explains that there is a strong mandate for an orchestra or band as an extracurricular club. Isabelle speaks for the silent majority of year 6 students, who are sceptical that body percussion music is an adequate substitute for the playing of actual musical instruments in the end-of-year production. Sally Ann, on behalf of many, strongly commends the benefits of peripatetic music lessons, and is dismayed that this is not an option available to everyone.
There is so much young passion for music, so much creative potential, and yet by the time they are in their mid-teens, precious few students take music qualifications, as was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green. This all contributes to a downwards spiral in too many cases: a lack of space in the curriculum means few, or often no, music lessons for too many students; fewer students take up the subject, so fewer teachers become qualified; and university departments are closing because of poor uptake—they lack the placement opportunities because of a lack of lessons in the curriculum. The cycle must be broken.
After 14 years of the previous Government, the mean yearly budget for music departments in maintained schools was £1,800; in academies and free schools it was £2,200; in independent schools it was £10,000. The Labour Government cannot continue to allow 93% of the student population to be let down. Furthermore, the Conservative Government only allocated enough funding to cover 40% of the cost of music hubs. The remaining cost can only be covered by families, and inevitably this often means only the most privileged and economically thriving. According to the Independent Society of Musicians, the gap between private and state music education has become, sadly, a chasm.
I am really glad that this Government have made significant steps in the right direction: providing £25 million for instruments in schools this academic year; introducing the music opportunities fund, which will support 1,000 young people and children; and changing progress 8 measures to include creative arts subjects, an issue on which I have engaged with my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that she takes it very seriously and is doing great work; however, I respectfully call on the Government to go further.
Music has as much to offer young people as maths or science. I therefore endorse the recommendations of Birmingham City University academics and the ISM—let me put on record my gratitude to the Birmingham City University academics for the time they spent briefing me and for all they do to research this important area. They and the ISM recommend giving music teachers equal priority by increasing bursaries and recruitment, in order to put music at the heart of the curriculum in the upcoming curriculum and assessment review—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is considering these matters very seriously. They also recommend reforming the EBacc to prevent music being sidelined, making GCSE and A-level music more accessible and appealing, and creating a sustained pipeline for music education.
We must fundamentally view music in a different light, adapting the motto “Sports for all” to “Music for all”. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that, representing the town of Rugby, I am a passionate supporter of sports. They provide people with wonderful lifelong skills. However, it is my personal view that a disproportionate amount of attention is given to sport in our educational settings and, frankly, in society in general. That needs to be reversed. We need a change, frankly, in the culture of our entire society. That goes beyond the powers of any of us in this Chamber, and indeed perhaps even those of Ministers, yet we must all engage in seeking, really, a revolution in people’s attitude towards music.
My dad began learning the trombone in his middle age, and his life has been transformed by the joys that music education and performance have given him. When we had a chat recently, he said that we perhaps should have a “duty of candour” not to abandon one of the most successful aspects of our creative life in schools and beyond.
Caroline Lumsden, my former violin teacher, agrees, saying that we must democratise music. We must make it available to all students, regardless of wealth, and recruit more specialist music teachers, especially in primary schools, because we all know that earlier intervention is better intervention. As I have mentioned, we must intervene at the very beginning of people’s lives and break any destructive cycles.
Caroline and her late husband Alan moved into the village next to the one I grew up in, creating a wonderful music school called Beauchamp Music Group, which started in her front room and then expanded into the dairy of the farm, which still contained dairy equipment. Latterly, they developed the barn into a space that even a full orchestra could play in and where summer courses could take place. That transformed my life. Even my academic abilities improved when I started learning the violin—probably not enough, but they improved none the less.
That experience added to the education at the superb comprehensive school I was privileged to attend, Newent community school. Its head, Mr Landau, was a true believer in music and gave huge backing to my music teacher, Miss Wrenn. She was head of music, and through her dedication and inspired leadership of that department, the students in that state comprehensive school were able to participate in peripatetic lessons. Lots of us took GCSE and A-level music. There was a brass band, a jazz band and a rock band. There were chamber concerts each term. There was a junior orchestra and a senior orchestra. We even wrote the music for one of the school’s dramatic productions and played in the pit orchestra. It was truly incredible and wonderful. However, I would imagine that latterly it has become harder for schools to achieve such a level of provision.
Thanks to those dedicated educators, thousands of young people’s lives were transformed. In a recent meeting that I helped to organise, the chief medical officer for Scotland, quite incredibly but aptly, described investment in the creative arts as a public health intervention. In my view, anything that we can do to invest in music education and the creative arts more broadly is also a hard and soft-skills intervention. It is an anti-crime, community-strengthening, child development and community cohesion intervention. It is an intervention in local economies and our exports. It is an intervention that boosts jobs. Going back to my “Kumbaya” point, it also drastically improves wellbeing, fun, happiness and joy in our lives as individuals and communities.
Yet despite the best efforts and the genuine belief of the Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in this cause, there is a chance that the system simply does not quite get it. To be clear, that is in no way to denigrate the excellent work of my hon. and right hon. Friends the Ministers, who I thoroughly believe want to do everything that they can to improve music education. But, as I alluded to earlier, I think the broader system—society at large and parts of the media—do not fully get just how important music and creative arts education are.
I again thank my ministerial colleagues for all the work they have done. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green for securing this important debate. I conclude by saying that no student from Paddox primary school should have to give up their passion. No one should be denied the opportunity of a musical education. I challenge any hon. Member here to defy the mandate of Paddox primary school’s student council.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
The hon. Member has failed to take the opportunity to give us a verse of “Kumbaya”.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I warmly thank my friend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate and speaking so passionately on an issue that matters deeply to so many of us. I serve with him on the music education APPG, which I declare as an interest.
I want to speak not just in a political capacity, but from personal experience. For me, this issue is deeply rooted in my own story. I grew up in a single-parent household and attended my local state comprehensive school. My journey into music began in a somewhat unlikely way. My clarinet teacher, the wonderful David Leverton, rummaged through a school cupboard and unearthed an old plastic bassoon. David said I was good at music and had big hands and suggested that I started playing it. That was a genius move because bassoonists, as many here may know, are often in high demand. As a result, I was able to join ensembles and experienced opportunities that might not have been available to me as just another clarinettist.
The real turning point, and what changed my life, was joining my local youth orchestra. That was possible only because of a music scholarship from Hampshire county council, which supported me to pay to take the train from Eastleigh to Parkstone each week and to cover the cost of the lessons with the incredible Eric Butt, the former principal bassoonist of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, to whom I also pay tribute. At a difficult time in my school life, music offered me more than just education; it gave me new friends, a place to belong and unforgettable experiences. It taught me discipline, teamwork and performance skills. None of that would have been possible without that council scholarship.
Today, swathes of young people are being locked out of those kinds of opportunities. We are seeing the steady erosion of music education, with fewer scholarships, less local support and growing inequality in access. Many of us came into politics to lower the rope ladder for those behind us; but right now, it feels as though successive Governments, through policy choices and a broad indifference to the arts, are pulling that ladder up. The facts are stark. As the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green said, the Department for Education missed its recruitment target for music teachers in 11 of the last 12 years, and in the most recent initial teacher training census for 2024-25, just 49% of the target for music trainees was met. That is not just a statistic; it is a flashing warning light.
According to a 2021 report from the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, around 60% of people working in music, performing and the visual arts come from privileged backgrounds. As has been mentioned, we now see a vicious cycle. With less music education in schools, fewer young people are choosing to pursue it professionally, further deepening that divide. At the heart of our communities, music hubs remain vital engines of creativity, inclusion and opportunity. They give children the chance to pick up an instrument, find their voice, and discover joy, resilience and confidence through music. They spark lifelong passions and, in many cases, careers. But despite their enormous impact, many music hubs are hanging by a thread.
National funding for music hubs has been frozen in cash terms since 2015-16. In real terms, that has meant a significant cut, especially in the face of rising cost and inflation. That is compounded by deep uncertainty about future funding, new responsibilities under the national plan for music education, and a recent structural overhaul that imposed additional and often unbudgeted, costs. I have spoken to representatives of one south-west hub where the situation is particularly alarming. It has received a 100% cut in local authority support, as of March this year, which has left it facing a massive financial shortfall.
As a result, that hub has had to cancel a major children’s concert at a professional venue, creative projects with local artists have been scaled back, grants to vital community ensembles have been reduced, and schools—of which, locally, 100% subscribe to the hub—face a 20% price increase, while special projects and emergency support have been shelved altogether. If that trend continues into 2026-27, the consequences for that hub will be even more severe: staff redundancies, the dismantling of a highly successful model, and a dramatic reduction in services for schools and young people.
That is not an isolated case. Music hub leads across the country are sounding the alarm. They are doing everything they can, but are stretched to the limit. Without urgent investment, the entire ecosystem is at risk of collapse. If we are serious about nurturing the next generation of talent, and truly believe that every child should have access to the transformative power of music, we must act.
That is why I and the Lib Dems are calling for three things: first, proper funding for music education through an arts pupil premium so that access to music is not determined by postcode or privilege, but by potential and passion; secondly, a significant expansion in the number of teacher training places for specialist music educators, so that we can rebuild the pipeline of talent needed to inspire the next generation; and thirdly, we have to reverse the real-terms cuts to arts education and music hubs.
If we cannot sort the structural issues with music education, I worry that no number of new national centres for arts education will stop the steady decline in young people from all backgrounds being able to take part in a full music education.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that I completely echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) about recruitment. It is important that we get that right. I enjoyed him reminding me of my previous life, as he took us through many parts of his constituency; I know much of his new constituency well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) was typically modest. I believe he is one of very few Members of the House, if not the only one, who has a track on Spotify. So forget “Kumbaya, my Lord”—
Adam Jogee
SoundCloud—there you are. The point is made: he is cooler than I am.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green for securing this important debate, and I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is an important subject, and how lucky we are that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby did not sing in his speech.
Music is very important to us in Newcastle-under-Lyme, from music venues such as the Rigger, in town, to the Brown Jug on Bridge Street, where my late uncle Colin and his Climax Blues Band used to perform on a Friday night in many years gone by, not to mention the karaoke sessions in a number of pubs right across the constituency. Recently, I had the good fortune to attend the 50th anniversary concert of the Keele Bach Choir, which was brilliant. I pay tribute to all those involved, including people who joined the choir when it started 50 years ago and are still singing today. I give a particular shout-out to Glynis Brewer, the constituent who extended the invitation to me.
I was raised on my parents’ Motown collection, and who does not enjoy an Irish traditional music session on a Sunday night? Music is a tonic and a skill; it can be a refuge, and it brings people together. That is why music education is so important. One of the best decisions of the Labour Government that was in power when I was growing up was the introduction of free music lessons in schools. The only thing I regret is my choice of instrument. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, I chose the violin but I wish I had gone with the saxophone, which would have been much cooler. I used to watch “The Simpsons” every day after school, and the saxophone from Lisa just rubbed that in. I have been advised that there is nothing stopping me picking it up now, but since coming to this House there has been a bit more on the agenda. I remember Mary Jones, my music teacher at primary school, very well. If she is watching the debate today, I remain grateful for the tolerance that she showed me week in, week out.
Since my election to this place, I have seen the power that music has in our schools. On a recent visit to St Mary’s primary school in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I met Caroline Walton, who has been teaching music there for almost two decades. I pay tribute to Caroline and her colleagues for the work they do to ensure that young people in our community are able to benefit from the power that music brings. I also pay tribute to the Newcastle-under-Lyme Community Orchestra, led by Tom Barlow-Coxon. It is a community project based in our patch that aims to create a friendly atmosphere for local musicians to make music. We want people to join that orchestra, so we need music education in our schools for them to be able to do so.
I want to speak briefly about a couple of specific points. First, the scope of the independent curriculum review is very narrow, focusing just on the content of the national curriculum and methods of assessment for qualifications. The important issues—time spent on arts subjects, accountability measures such as the EBacc, teacher numbers, teacher training, funding and resourcing —are outside the scope of the review, and that is a matter of some regret. The review will report later this year and it will then be in the hands of politicians in this place. What will the Government do to ensure that all the structural issues undermining arts education in our schools, not just the ones within the scope of the review, are properly and adequately addressed? I hope that the Minister will be able to address that specifically. If not, perhaps she can find time to meet me to talk about it on a separate occasion.
Like Members across the House, I welcome the news of the national centre and the fact that hubs will be part of it. We have heard colleagues mention hubs, which I think speaks to this point. I hope that the Minister can confirm the funding that will be available for the national centre, and that it will not be the same amount previously provided to hubs but now with the expectation that all arts subjects will be covered from the same pot. I am conscious that the Minister’s response will be that it is not for her to write Budgets—our hon. Friend is not the Chancellor—but I would be grateful if she could get as close as she can to confirming that an inflation-based funding increase will be provided to hubs, separate from the new settlement that will be needed to cover other arts subjects.
Will the Government follow other nations in the United Kingdom and commission a review into the pay and conditions for visiting music teachers? Those teachers, who come to the classroom from different professional backgrounds to provide different teaching, are vital to the Government’s plans for music education. Yet many of those teachers are on low pay and precarious contracts, and there is no oversight or policy governing how they are paid. A review is at the very least a first step, so I hope the Minister will consider that.
One of the most important parts of education is the ability to share, discover and unpick. With that in mind, there remains a glaring omission from our reset with our friends and neighbours on the European continent, and that is action on visas. A visa waiver for touring artists could lower costs for UK artists and increase the amount of time that they are able to work in the European Union, allowing for more last-minute bookings and European collaboration opportunities. A visa waiver agreement for touring artists would enhance the competitiveness of the creative industries in our country and strengthen our ties with the EU as a whole. I hope that the Minister will take that point back to the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office so that we get the issue firmly on the agenda.
This is an important debate. I accept that I have given the Minister several quite detailed questions, but I am happy for her to follow up in writing or to meet me in person. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green for bringing the debate to the House.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this important debate. I say that as someone who, just a few weeks ago, stood in this hall and led a debate on the contribution of maths to the UK, where I argued that investment in science, technology, engineering and maths education was crucial to the UK’s future.
To some, it may seem a little odd that I am about to make the same argument for the creative arts, which sadly are often pitted against STEM, as though we must choose to side with one versus the other when devising education policy. I would argue that that is a false dichotomy. There is no reason why we cannot afford appropriate time and funding to both areas. In fact, I would suggest that they work hand in hand in many ways. Many fundamental mathematical discoveries came from those who first had musical inclinations. Pythagoras identified the harmonic series through an interest in the sounds that a water-filled urn made when struck. Leibniz once stated:
“Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.”
John Slinger
I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Does he agree that this is the cultural and societal-level challenge that I referred to in my speech, whereby music is seen in some way as a flowery activity for an elite or a tiny minority of the population? Perhaps it is seen as something that men or boys would be less inclined to do—as dancing is—and it is regarded as a particular niche. That is not helpful, because we need to show that music is for absolutely everybody and that it has benefits to offer all, just as we do when we talk about sport.
Ian Sollom
I could not agree more. This absolutely goes beyond the practicalities of learning an instrument or understanding music theory. It is about those soft skills that we so regularly talk about in sport, but less so in music for some reason, and that is a cultural challenge.
Beyond that, music can also be hugely pleasurable as an activity that does wonders for mental health and stress relief. Certainly, I most reliably relax when I sit down in front of the piano or pick up the guitar, although I do not think the people I live with relax quite as much. Above all, music brings value to our society, and the UK’s thriving cultural sector is a national treasure. The creative industries are crucial to our economy and are worth £126 billion. Too often, they have been neglected, and they will decline without appropriate attention.
Like any other subject, everyone should have fair access to participation in music education. Unfortunately, as hon. Members have observed today, music education in the UK is currently one of the poorest performing subjects for fair access and inclusion. Although music forms part of the national curriculum from key stages 1 to 3, meaning that all maintained schools must teach music from ages five to 14, a 2022 survey by the Independent Society of Musicians found that there was significant variability in the quality of teaching across the country. Whether a child is lucky enough to attend a school with good musical provision is a complete postcode lottery, and that is stifling the pipeline of future creative professionals, which will impact industries such as film, theatre, music and design. Has the Minister considered giving Ofsted the power to monitor curriculum breadth, ensuring that schools are offering a rich and diverse programme that gives equal weight to academic, creative and practical learning?
In my constituency, Cambourne Village college, in particular, is an example of great music education, where students are entitled to three sessions of music a fortnight, as opposed to only once a fortnight in a carousel with other performing arts subjects, as is often the case in other schools. As such, the school’s GCSE music numbers have remained stable and healthy for many years, but real-terms per-pupil cuts have led to a narrowing of the curriculum that is felt acutely at key stage 5, where subjects attracting small numbers are not financially viable. The Cambourne sixth form has found itself unable to offer either music or music tech A-levels, despite there being more than enough enthusiasm, at least from teachers.
Yearly school budgets also expose the inequalities faced across the country. To repeat some of the statistics cited by the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), there was an average of £1,865 per year allocated to music departments in maintained schools and around £2,000 in academies and free schools, in 2022. That contrasts with the £10,000 spent in independent schools. For maintained schools, that is sometimes around only £1 per student each year, so the cuts really make a big difference.
Budget cuts have had a disproportionate impact on music and arts departments, leading to fewer resources, less specialised teaching staff and reduced opportunities for students. I have heard from one music teacher who told me of his regret about leaving his state school post for an independent one. He felt that in the state school he was not just a teacher, but a shoulder to cry on, because music sessions were sometimes the only chance for students to talk to someone one on one. However, the pay difference between an independent school and a maintained school was just too much to turn down. It is clear from this that the lack of opportunity is not only shrinking our children’s future options, but having an impact on their wellbeing.
Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to ensure all teachers are paid a fair wage for the work they do and are empowered to deliver high quality education to their pupils. In many previous debates on education, I and many other colleagues have made the point to the Minister that, because inequalities in the arts are not tackled at their root in schools, they continue into universities. The decline in the further study of music can therefore be seen working its way up through the education system, with several high-profile cuts to music degree programmes over the past few years, including the well-regarded department at Oxford Brookes University.
The Sutton Trust has found that music as a university subject has a far larger percentage of privately educated students than any other subject, with more than 50% of music students at Oxford, Cambridge and King’s College London coming from upper-middle-class backgrounds. That is not the case with STEM. Some might question why that matters, but it is a fundamental question of fairness. If children are interested in music or show talent, they should be able to pursue that just like they would in any other subject.
That is part of the reason why the Liberal Democrats believe that art subjects, such as music, fine art and photography, should be included in the English baccalaureate, so that students do not have to choose between that false dichotomy of STEM and creative subjects, particularly music, and do not have to narrow down their options so early in school.
The Britten Sinfonia in Cambridge is the only professional orchestra in the east of England. It has historically done some excellent outreach work at schools in the area, including at Impington Village college in my constituency, leading workshops and mentoring to improve the standard of the school’s orchestra and, in doing so, widen access. In 2023, it had its Arts Council England funding completely cut. It was not a small cut; it was totally removed. It was left high and dry with a shortfall of £1 million over three years.
Cutting the budget of Arts Council England is just one example of the way that the previous Government neglected the social, economic and mental health benefits that the arts can bring. I strongly urge the current Government to do better with the funding.
When Pink Floyd claimed, “We don’t need no education,” they wrote a great song but were very wrong. Some suggest that they actually wrote the song about what is now Hills Road sixth form college, which serves my constituency; it is a brilliant institution with a clear track record of producing excellent musicians. Pink Floyd were wrong, because we do need education—perhaps not the restrictive, authoritarian education that they were railing against, but fair and inclusive education, of which music is absolutely part.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this very important debate.
They say that politics is showbusiness for ugly people, and in my case that is directly true: the only reason I am here is that the band that I was in when I was 16, alas, did not work out. It was very unfair. The main reason it did not work out is that we were objectively terrible, and I was probably the worst member. None the less, I have always appreciated the contribution of music to our lives.
Like others, I thank our fantastic music teachers and all those involved in music education in and out of schools at all levels. I would particularly like to thank my former music teacher, Tim Slater—alas, no longer here—and those who teach in my daughter’s primary school, who put on the most amazing musical works, including a series of musicals at Easter for the Passion that they wrote themselves. The quality has to be heard to be believed: they could genuinely be on Broadway. For weeks afterwards, our children and I were going round the house humming bits of the songs written by the music teachers in that little primary school, so incredible work is done across this country by wonderful people.
We have had fantastic speeches from Members from both sides of the House, including the hon. Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Newcastle- under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Rugby (John Slinger). I always find Westminster Hall debates fascinating, because they are like peeling an onion: we see new sides of colleagues, from the plastic bassoon and the fusion of hip-hop and classical to the discovery that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) is also into the Floyd—we must take that offline.
John Slinger
I merely want to correct the record. I hope it is understood that I am not claiming to be a hip-hop artist; I do not want to get the wrong booking or anything like that. I played in a rock band, which probably sits somewhere in between, not a hip-hop band—much as I like hip-hop.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to put on the record an important point of clarification. I understand that the Leader of the House is looking at modernising the terms that we use in this place—the word “Bill” will be scrapped, perhaps—so the next time we come to this Chamber, it may no longer be a Westminster Hall debate, but a sound system clash or some equivalent that has been modernised.
To create a sense of balance, I will say various things about what the last Government did on music education. I will not say that everything in the world was brilliant—obviously it was not—but, for the sake of balance, let us hear some of the things we did. We introduced the music education hubs, which hon. Members have mentioned. They did a mix of providing musical education directly and helping schools. There are, I think, 43 in England today, and we put in £79 million over the past three years towards that programme and another £25 million for the direct capital funding of musical instruments for kids. We brought in the first ever national plan for music education, a key goal of which was to give every child the chance to learn a musical instrument. By 2018, a record number of children were learning instruments.
That plan also set out goals to have high-quality music education and more partnerships between schools and others, and to try to reverse the decline in the amount of time spent on music in schools, which I will come back to in a moment.
I will not make lots of political points today, but I note that the current Government have pulled the funding for the national youth music organisations. I think it was in February that the national youth music organisations announced that the Government would not be renewing their contribution of £0.5 million towards their work. That is one thing that perhaps takes us in the wrong direction.
A question I want to ask the Minister early on in my remarks is about something where there is quite a lot of uncertainty for parents. The Government announced that they would top up the music and dance scheme bursaries for musically gifted young people, so that the effect of the VAT increase on independent schools was counteracted, and they said that that would mean that things would remain unchanged for the rest of the 2024-25 academic year. I want to ask the Minister what will happen for future academic years, which are of course now looming. We have only two weeks left of school, certainly in Leicestershire; it may be three in the rest of the country. The next academic year is looming, and I am keen to understand from the Minister whether that decision will stand for all future academic years and in particular for the one coming up.
We have talked a bit about the various changes and trends in music education. It has not been one thing over the last 14 years; there have been different phases. There definitely was a squeeze on music in the coalition period, in the years from 2010 to 2015, but there has been a recovery since, which has not necessarily come out in the debate so far. If we look at the number of hours of music taught across all years, we see that that has gone up from about 80,000 hours a year in 2017-18 to about 86,000 now, so the total amount of music education has been going up since that low point in 2017.
This is all aligned with some of the things that were happening to funding over that period. Very difficult decisions on funding were being made in the light of inheriting, in 2010, the largest structural deficit in our entire peacetime history. That was not something we wanted to inherit, but over time we moved towards more generous settlements for schools. In the last Parliament, for example, there was an 11% real-terms funding increase per pupil, and that benefited lots of different things, including music.
We have talked about the loss of music teachers, but the number of music teachers has followed a similar, U-shaped trajectory. We have 1,000 more music teachers than we did in 2017-18. The number went from about 6,500 up to 7,500 by 2024. It is worth bringing out some of the nuances in this debate. Also, in a lot of debates about this subject—I have read previous debates on it—we hear people talking about GCSE entries, but as the Government’s own curriculum and assessment review points out, we have to also look at the other qualifications. Although GCSEs have gone down, technical music qualifications that are not GCSE qualifications have been going up, so it is worth having the full and rounded picture.
Speaking of full and rounded pictures, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also talked about the nature of education debates and the way we often have different priorities being advanced. As someone who has followed education for a long time, I am very conscious that there are constant calls for x to be put on the national curriculum or for schools to do more y. Of course, our poor old teachers, our hard-working teachers, have only so many hours in their day. They are already working hard and there are inevitable trade-offs. The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire said—I agreed with 90% of his speech—that these things are not in tension with one another. To some extent, they are. There are only a certain number of hours in the school day or in a child’s day, and we do need to make choices.
I do not always say this, but one very sensible thing that the Government did was to commission some polling, as part of the curriculum review, about what parents and young people themselves want to see more of in school. The results are really interesting. The survey was of kids who did their GCSEs last year and their parents, and they were asked, “What would you like to have spent more time on in school?” In response, 35% say employment and interview skills, 27% say academic subjects, like maths, history and science, 26% say digital skills and computing, 26% say creative thinking and problem solving, 22% say sports, 22% say communication, like debating and public speaking, 19% say technical subjects, 18% say volunteering and outdoor pursuits and 15% say cultural activities like music, drama and media.
I mention that not to say that music is not important—obviously it is; the whole point of this debate is that it is hugely important—but merely to sympathise slightly with Ministers for once, because a lot of different people want more of different things in the school day and there are tensions and choices for them. In that same poll, only about 1% of parents said that their kids were not doing arts subjects because they were not available at their school. There was more of an issue with technical and vocational subjects.
One of the things that I am proud of about our time in government is that we prioritised gateway subjects, which has had positive effects. For example, having fallen from 83% to a low of 70% between 2006 and 2011, the share of pupils who take double or triple science has now increased to 98%, and the share of children doing triple science increased from 6%, to 27% in 2019. There was a real turnaround in science, and the same is true in other areas. One of the reasons that English schoolchildren have become the highest achieving in the western world in reading and maths, in studies such as the trends in international mathematics and science study and the programme for international student assessment, while Scotland and Wales have gone backwards, is that we have focused on the important core academic disciplines.
None of that is an argument against music or doing more in music; it is simply that there are choices for us. If people say that they want more of the school day devoted to something, they should be clear about what they do not want. I am a bit sceptical about messing around too much with long-running accountability and progress measures such as Attainment 8 and Progress 8. Of course, a student’s results in GCSE music can already be put into those measures if it is one of their eight best subjects. There is discretion: three of the eight have to be from the broad range of subjects in the EBacc, but three do not, so there is already huge school choice in the measure. I am very sceptical about using it as the way to solve our problems.
I will end by introducing a thought that has not been much discussed in previous debates on music education. I will not relitigate the debates we have had with the Government about phones in schools, and I do not think that this is something we will disagree on, but we need to think about the way that young people are spending their time, including out of school. I am alarmed by the changes in the way that young people are spending their time: the increase in the amount of time they are spending alone and on social media and the incredible number of kids who, when you ask them, “What are you doing this evening?”, say, “I’ll be scrolling TikTok.”
That is incredibly depressing, and we can see that it is having negative real-world consequences. It is leading to worse mental health among young people and worse real-world consequences in, for example, A&E admissions. It is eating up the time for other things that, when we are much older, we wish we had spent more time on. I wish that I had spent more time learning the guitar and less time faffing around on the ZX Spectrum, that time thief of the 1980s, but young people today have it much worse because of social media. They feel compelled to be on it because of social pressure and because it is designed by geniuses to be incredibly addictive, and it is eating up their time.
One thing we may find a consensus on over time is the need to do something about that and to change the balance of young people’s lives and the amount of time they spend on social media, often on platforms that they are not supposed to be on but that happily welcome young people, who they can monetise—in violation of their own terms and conditions, by the way. I fear that I am veering away from the subject, but this is an important part of the conversation. Here is a very large part of the time of young people, who are at the time of their lives when they have the opportunity and the mental sponginess to learn something new—and could, unlike me, make a success of a career in rock and roll—yet it is being swallowed up by things that in future they will not think were a good use of their time.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green on securing this very important debate, which I welcome. There is a lot more we can do. I hope that the Minister will cover the point about the special bursaries scheme.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for opening this valuable debate on the future of music education. He made it clear what a great advocate he is for music education. He chairs the APPG on music education and is a constant powerful voice on this issue in this House. I also want to declare that my husband runs a music venue. It is not directly relevant to this debate, but I put it on the record just to be clear.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for his thoughtful contribution. I appreciate his concerns about ensuring that music is held in the high esteem it deserves in the education system; they came across clearly in his speech. I enjoyed hearing about the childhood experiences of the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and about that aspect of music that creates a sense of belonging and friendship. That is in short supply for too many young people; where music can meet that demand, we need to make sure that the opportunity is available. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) gave a wide-ranging speech, covering an array of Departments, which clearly displayed his passion for this issue. I hope that I can answer his questions.
Finally, I thank the hon. Members for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for their thoughtful contributions—in particular the latter, who was uncharacteristically comradely. That obviously shows the measure of him, but it also indicates the level of cross-party agreement on this issue, which is always welcome in this place.
The Government are clear that music education must not be the preserve of the privileged few. Creative subjects such as music are important pillars of a rounded and enriching education, which every child should have. That is why, as part of our opportunity mission, we want to widen access to the arts so that young people can develop their creativity and find their voice. That is important in its own right—creative exploration is a critical part of a rich education—but it also helps young people to find opportunities and helps to support our desire to power growth for the creative industries.
I learned to play a musical instrument at school. I played the flute, which, I have to say, conflicted with my talkative nature—that was probably the thinking when they gave it to me. I had the opportunity to play in the school orchestra, perform in school productions and sing in the choir. From those experiences, I know that music can be incredibly beneficial to academic achievement, too. It taps into parts of the brain that many subjects just do not reach. It builds confidence, presentation skills, teamwork and resilience, and it really feeds the soul, which is what keeps the mind expanding as well.
It starts with the curriculum. We want every child, regardless of their background, to have a rich, broad, inclusive and innovative curriculum, including in music. That is why one of our first actions in government was to launch the independent review of the curriculum and assessment system, chaired by Professor Becky Francis. The review is an important step in the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, with a new curriculum that will set up all our children to achieve and thrive at school. It is considering all subjects, including music, and seeks to deliver a curriculum that readies young people for life and for work, including in creative subjects and skills.
The review is being informed by evidence and data and is being conducted in close consultation with education professionals and other experts, parents, children and young people—as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston referred to—and other stakeholders, including employers, universities and trade unions. We have had over 7,000 responses to the public call for evidence, and a range of research and polling. The final report, with recommendations, will be published this autumn, along with the Government’s response.
We will consider all the associated implications for accountability measures, such as EBacc and Progress 8, alongside the changes. We are legislating too, so that, following the review and the implementation of reforms, academies will be required to teach the reformed national curriculum alongside maintained schools. That will ensure that music education is reinstated as an entitlement for every child in a state-funded school. It will give parents certainty over their children’s education while giving both academies and maintained schools the freedom to adapt their curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils.
We recognise, however, that curriculum reforms alone will not be enough to give all children access to a high-quality arts education, including in music. We know that we need to support our schools and teachers, which is why we have announced our intention to launch a national centre for arts and music education, which a number of Members asked about. The new centre will help us meet our ambition for an improved and more equitable arts education. It will support schools in the teaching of music as well as art and design, drama and dance. Music will be an important aspect of the centre’s work, as it will also be the national delivery partner for the music hubs network. The 43 hub partnerships are central to supporting schools.
I recognise some of the challenges outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, who wants to see less bureaucracy and a more streamlined service. The aims of the national centre will be to support excellent teaching, develop sustainable partnerships and promote arts education. The research is clear that high-quality teaching is the in-school factor with the greatest positive impact on a child’s outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged children.
Sustainable partnerships between schools themselves, within and between academy trusts, and with cultural organisations with knowledge of arts education are so important in supporting teachers and addressing equity in arts education. The promotion of arts education in and of itself is needed to tackle the persistent inequity of access in and beyond schools.
As this work develops, we will very much take on board some of the concerns about how the current system is working. The intention is to launch the new centre by September 2026, and to appoint a new delivery partner for the centre through an open, competitive procurement. We have been engaging with sector stake- holders, including the music hubs network, to refine the details of the centre, and the invitation to tender will be issued later this year.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that the funding for the national centre will be separate from the grant funding for the music hubs. Funding for the centre and the hubs from September 2026 will be confirmed in due course.
Music hubs play a vital role across England in supporting children and young people to access music education and providing opportunities for them to progress. The 43 music hub partnerships across England offer a range of services, including musical instrument tuition, instrument loaning, whole-class ensemble teaching and CPD for teachers.
John Slinger
I have heard a rumour that a local authority found in one of its municipal buildings a vast store of unused but usable musical instruments. Will my hon. Friend ask her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government if they might gently ask other local authorities to do a little audit to see whether they have similar stores? If they do, the instruments could be distributed to primary schools, in particular, where they are very much needed.
Catherine McKinnell
That sounds like a very sensible suggestion, and my hon. Friend now has it on the record. We will make sure that it is raised in the appropriate way.
We continue to support the crucial music hubs programme, for which grant funding of £76 million has recently been secured for the full academic year 2025-26, up until the end of August 2026, following the outcome of the spending review. We will confirm longer-term funding as part of the spending review process, which is ongoing. To widen access to musical instruments, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby rightly raised, from the current academic year the Government are investing £25 million in capital funding for musical instruments, equipment and technology. Those instruments and technology must be put to good use, so we will take his concern on board.
For some pupils, in particular those facing disadvantage and with additional needs, the barriers to accessing music education can be particularly high. That is why we are also investing in a new programme to pilot targeted support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds or with special educational needs and disabilities. The Government’s music opportunities pilot offers pupils across primary and secondary schools the opportunity to learn to play an instrument of their choice or to sing to a high standard by providing free lessons and supporting young people to progress, including by taking music exams. The Government are investing £2 million to support the pilot over a four-year period up to 2027-28. It is backed by a further £3.85 million from the Arts Council and Youth Music. The pilot is delivered by Young Sounds UK in 12 areas of the country as an expansion of its successful Young Sounds Connect programme.
I saw for myself the impact of the pilot on a visit to Mountfield primary school in Washington, where I had a lovely time chatting to the children about the difference that accessing music education had made to them. Indeed, for some of them it was why they came to school. The impact was evident. We will use the pilot’s findings to inform future policy on widening music opportunities, but it is a really rich start.
Adam Jogee
Will the Minister accept my invitation, from one Newcastle MP to another, to follow up on her visit to the school in Washington and come and see the formative impact that music has at St Mary’s school in Newcastle-under-Lyme? I am sure she would be very welcome.
Catherine McKinnell
As my hon. Friend will know, I am a big fan of Newcastles. It would be nice to come and see the other one, as I have never been; I would love to accept his invitation if there is an opportunity.
High-quality teaching is the in-school factor that makes the biggest difference to a child’s outcomes. That is why, as part of the Government’s plan for change, we are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across secondary and special schools and our colleges, where they are needed the most, over this Parliament. To support that, we are offering a teacher training incentives package for the 2025-26 recruitment cycle worth £233 million—a £37 million increase on the last cycle. It includes a £10,000 tax-free bursary for music.
We are seeing positive signs. The 2024-25 initial teacher training census reported that 331 trainees had begun courses in music, up from 216 in 2023-24. We have also agreed a 5.5% pay award for teachers for 2024-25, and a 4% pay award in 2025-26, meaning that teachers and leaders will see an increase in pay of almost 10% over two years. We have expanded our school teacher recruitment campaign and we are allowing planning, preparation and assessment time to be undertaken at home to give more flexibility to the profession.
We are also working hard to address teacher workload and wellbeing, and to support schools to introduce flexible working practices. We have the “Improve workload and wellbeing for school staff” service, developed alongside school leaders, with a workload reduction toolkit to support schools to identify opportunities to cut excessive workload.
I spoke on teacher recruitment at the Schools and Academies Show just over a year ago, prior to the general election, when I was the shadow Minister. After I finished speaking about our vision of unlocking opportunity for children to access art, music, sport and enrichment at school, I said hello to a gentleman who had been patiently waiting to speak to me. He introduced himself; I asked him what he did, and he said, “I’m a music teacher. To be honest, I had taken the decision to give up and do something else, but after listening to you today, I think I’m going to hang on.” I thought he should definitely hang on—we need more people like him—and that we had injected a sense of hope that this Government would care about music and enrichment. Now that we are in government, I hope that he is still teaching, along with many others, and that he knows that we are determined to deliver our vision to unlock access to music for all children. I hope our brilliant teachers feel supported to have a rewarding and fruitful career inspiring the next generation of musicians.
We know that enrichment opportunities like music and the arts help young people to gain skills and strengthen their sense of school belonging, supporting them to thrive. That is why we are supporting schools to plan a high-quality enrichment offer, with a new enrichment framework developed in collaboration with a working group of experts, including from school, youth, sports and arts organisations. The Department is working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and we are committed to publishing the framework by the end of 2025. It will identify what a high-quality enrichment offer will look like, reflecting the great practice that already exists in schools and providing advice on how to plan a high-quality enrichment offer more strategically and intentionally, including how to make use of specific programmes to increase access to sport and the arts.
In addition, under the first ever dormant assets scheme strategy, which was announced last month, £132.5 million will be allocated to projects to increase disadvantaged young people’s access to enrichment opportunities, including in music, to boost wellbeing and employability. The fund will be delivered by the National Lottery Community Fund, with which the Government are working to design the specific programmes that will be delivered.
We recognise the importance of specialist training in supporting young people to pursue the most advanced levels of music education. That is why we continue to provide generous support to help students to access specialist music and dance education and training: we are committing £36 million for the academic year 2025-26. As several hon. Members have mentioned, this important scheme provides means-tested bursaries and grants to enable high-achieving children and young people in music and dance to benefit from truly world-class specialist training, regardless of their personal and financial circumstances. The scheme supports students to attend eight independent schools and 20 centres for advanced training that provide places at weekends and evenings and in the school holidays. The bursaries support more than 2,000 pupils per year, with about 900 pupils attending one of the schools.
The Government continue to provide such generous support because we recognise how important it is. All families earning below the average relevant income of £45,000 a year and making parental contributions to fees will continue to benefit from the additional financial support in the next financial year, so they will not be affected by any VAT changes introduced in January 2025. Any future funding will be determined as part of the post-spending review process.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister talks about the next financial year. Can she be clear about which school years are covered? People going into the start of the school year in September 2026 will be covered, but the Government have not made a commitment for those starting in September 2027—I just want to check that that is correct.
Catherine McKinnell
My understanding is that the current commitment is for this academic year, 2025-26, and we will confirm funding for future years in due course.
The Department also provides a grant of over £210,000 to the Choir Schools Association and its choir schools scholarship scheme, offering means-tested support to choristers attending member schools, including cathedral and collegiate choir schools in England, to help those with exceptional talent to access this specialist provision.
As part of our plan for change, we are committed to ensuring that arts and culture thrive in every part of the country, with more opportunities for more people to engage, benefit from and work in arts and culture where they live. Between 2023 and 2026, Arts Council England will invest £444 million per year in England through its national portfolio to drive participation in cultural activities, including by children and young people. The Government have also announced more than £270 million in investment for our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector. That sum is made up of multiple funds, including the £85 million creative foundations fund and the £20 million museum renewal fund, to invest in fit-for-purpose cultural infrastructure.
The arts sector also benefits from generous tax reliefs. From 1 April 2025, theatres, orchestras and museums and galleries benefit from higher tax relief rates of 40% for non- touring productions and 45% for orchestral and touring productions. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked about touring. That is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but colleagues in Government are clearly very engaged with counterparts and stakeholders to make sure that these issues are addressed, because clearly there is a huge interest in supporting both non-touring productions and touring productions, where they create cultural, creative and industrial exchanges on a global basis.
As part of Labour’s “Creating growth” plan, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently undertaking a review documenting current and past funding for the arts, culture and heritage sectors. It is important that all that public money be spent really well. Baroness Hodge of Barking is leading the independent review of Arts Council England, examining whether the regions have access to high-quality arts and culture across the country and whether everyone is able to participate in and consume culture and creativity regardless of their background or where they live. I know that she was in the north-east recently, as part of that work.
Catherine McKinnell
Yes, Ms Vaz. Growth is the number one mission of the Government, and our new industrial strategy is central to the growth mission. As a sector in which the UK excels today, and which will propel us forward to tomorrow, the creative industries have been announced as one of the eight growth-driving sectors. Ensuring that the UK can provide a workforce that has the right skills and capabilities is key to unlocking that growth, which is why we have prioritised it within Skills England. We also want to see all that opportunity unlocked within our education system.
In closing, I hope that I have responded to the various questions that have been raised. [Interruption.] Sorry, I have a potential correction—well, I don’t think it is a correction, because I think it is what I said. We have committed the £36 million for the next academic year, 2025-26, in full, including support for lower-income families.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. We will not get a chance for Mr Charalambous to wind up if the Minister has not finished. Has she finished?
Catherine McKinnell
I hope that I have managed to respond to all the issues raised. Finally, I want to underline my and this Government’s commitment to ensuring that all children can access and engage with high-quality music education. I know that creative subjects, music and art are a vital part of a rich and broad school experience. That is what we are working towards. They must not be the preserve of the privileged few. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green again for the opportunity to discuss these issues today.
Bambos Charalambous
It has been a delight to take part in this debate. We have had cross-party unanimity about the need for better music education, and I am heartened to hear the Minister’s remarks. All the speakers today thanked their music teachers; we should all say a big thank you to all music teachers for the service that they provide, whether they are at school or peripatetic—many thanks to them all.
I hope that the Minister will look at recruitment of teachers. If things are not working, we will need to put things in place. I was not quite sure about the national plan for music, but I will catch up—
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend’s final question was a request to meet and discuss the matter. I am more than happy to do so.
Bambos Charalambous
Thank you.
Bearing in mind that we have so many talented musicians both in this room and in the Cabinet—including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is a saxophonist, and the Prime Minister, who is a flautist—the future is bright. We must make sure that we have these discussions and get the best future we can for music education.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of music education.
Children with Allergies: School Safeguarding
(2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding children with allergies at school.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. First, I would like to declare that I am an officer for the all-party parliamentary group on allergy. To be clear, I am not the first person to host a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate on the topic; Members who have been in this place for a much longer time than me, most notably the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) have long called for improvements to allergy safety in schools, and I pay tribute to them.
Many of us have experience of allergies: one in three people in the UK now live with allergic disease. In fact, this afternoon my speech will be tempered by the fact that my own allergies have taken control this morning, so I apologise for the slightly laboured delivery. I have my own personal experience, too; my son suffered a severe allergic reaction to an over-the-counter medication. The terrifying car journey to the hospital, watching his whole body turn blotchy red and not knowing what was wrong, is a fear that no parent should have to endure. The months that followed were filled with anxiety about what else he might be allergic to, and constant worry about receiving a call from nursery with bad news.
I have experienced this on a small scale, compared with many parents who live with the fear every day. I will not be commenting on individual cases, for legal reasons and because of ongoing legal proceedings, but I want to make clear that any child who has been lost in our schools because of an allergic reaction is one too many. Hospital admissions for allergic reactions have risen by over 160% in the past 20 years, and 50% of children are now affected by at least one allergic condition. Every year, approximately 43,000 new cases of child allergy require care. The number of children diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and eczema has tripled in 30 years, with 3.9 million currently affected. Studies show now that incidents of food allergies in England nearly doubled between 2008 and 2018, with a prevalence of 4% among pre-school children.
Children spend at least 20% of their waking hours in school, and food allergies affect around two children in every classroom. It should come as no surprise that 18% of food allergy reactions and 25% of first-time anaphylactic reactions occur in the school environment. Given the amount of time spent at school and the proportion of children affected, it is vital that children and their parents feel that school is a safe place and prepared to deal with allergic reactions, but sadly that is often not the case.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Parents want to know that their children can go to school safely, but they might equally have a reaction when they are not at school; 70% of parents of children with allergies report that they have experienced an absence because of an allergy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast number of difficulties faced by children with allergies and their parents merits the creation of a cross-departmental allergy tsar who could advise the Government on all the ways that allergies affect the sufferer?
Chris Bloore
My hon. Friend is a little ahead of the rest of my speech, but I completely agree, and I will give reasons for that. An allergy tsar who can cross Departments —Health, Education and others—could have a huge impact on how we deal with children with allergies.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I do not usually speak much about my family in the Chamber, but it is interesting that my hon. Friend spoke about his personal experience with his son. I phoned my nephew yesterday—it was his first day at primary school and he had his taster day—to show him Big Ben, which was going off at the time. When I did, he had hugely swollen eyes; he had had an allergic reaction at school, which had also been happening at nursery. He has an egg allergy. The nursery updated parents daily to say what they were having for lunch—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen these apps—and my brother phoned me one day to tell me that he had been told that my nephew had had quiche. Although it is important that we make sure we have these provisions in school settings, does my hon. Friend agree that we should make sure they are also there in early years settings?
Chris Bloore
I completely agree. Those family apps are a daily part of my life, as I see what my son is eating. I still have a little jittery feeling every time I see what food is going to him and whether he will have a reaction.
Allergy provisions in schools are unfortunately inconsistent, leaving children vulnerable and families sometimes fearful. There is no comprehensive national framework to safeguard children with allergies effectively. Approximately 70% of UK schools do not have basic protections in place, which has led some families to resort to home education, denying their children the opportunity to learn alongside their peers. One in three schools has no allergy policy at all, and many that do simply say “no nuts”. Half of schools do not have spare adrenalin auto-injector pens on site, and over 60% do not provide training to staff on how to manage allergies.
The impact on attendance is significant. Research by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation found that 70% of parents reported that their allergic child had missed school because of their allergy. Reasons include illness and medical appointments and, crucially, anxiety about safety and bullying. Two thirds of parents believe allergies negatively affect their children’s educational attainment. Allergies should never be a barrier to education and success. The mental health impact is equally serious. Data show that 83% of people with food allergies say it significantly impacts their wellbeing. Many children face bullying and teasing related to their allergies, causing feelings of isolation, fear and anxiety. Around 32% of children surveyed have been bullied due to food allergies at least once.
Some school practices worsen the isolation. I have heard of children being made to sit alone at lunch or missing out on treats given to other children on special occasions. Many parents restrict their children’s activities because of safety concerns, and some consider removing their children from mainstream education altogether. Allergy UK’s research shows that 61% of children with food allergies avoid social situations to reduce risk.
The lack of understanding can have tragic consequences. Eighty per cent of parents believe that their child’s allergies are not taken seriously at school, and such indifference can lead to delays in treatment and, heartbreakingly, to children not returning home from school.
Members from all parties have referenced the inconsistent and dangerous approach to allergy safety in schools. A brief look at Hansard reveals statements made by Ministers from all parties over the last 15 years about how an inconsistent approach to allergies causes dangers in our schools. To agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, who is not here today, the root cause of these issues is a lack of clarity in the Department for Education’s guidance, and a lack of accountability mechanisms to ensure that existing guidance is followed properly.
We must also remember that allergies are simply not a dietary issue. They are a medical issue requiring proper medical protocols and support. Yes, schools should lead on allergy policies, but freedom of information requests and research done by the Benedict Blythe Foundation show that not enough of them are doing so. We cannot blame schools for those failures. They must be provided with the right leadership, resources and support to implement consistent allergy safety measures. Teachers and staff want to protect children, but cannot do so without proper training and guidance.
Fifty per cent of parents believe that staff and teachers should have more training on allergies. This training should include allergy awareness management and emergency response training, including administration of adrenalin auto-injectors. It must be consistent, evidence-based and delivered in collaboration with medical professionals. Schools are under-resourced and need proper funding. A recent NASUWT survey found that 67% of school staff had not received allergy awareness training because of funding issues.
Alongside training, every school should have a specific allergy policy that includes an anaphylaxis plan. This ensures everyone knows their role in allergy safety, and families can be assured that a safe environment has been created. Safeguarding guidance should be strengthened to specifically reference children with allergies. Each child with a diagnosed allergy should have an individual healthcare plan developed with parents, schools and healthcare professionals, providing clear guidance on risk management and emergency procedures. All schools should record and report allergic reactions and near misses. A centralised database would allow better tracking of trends, identification of risks and improvements in policy.
Every school should be funded to hold in-date spare adrenalin auto-injectors, with staff trained in their use. Those devices should be as commonplace and accessible as defibrillators are now. Half of our schools do not have spare medication, and timely use of AAIs can mean the difference between life and death. We must also challenge stigma and raise awareness across our schools. Providing dairy-free alternatives to free milk for under-fives, ensuring free school meals and breakfast clubs are allergy inclusive, and including allergy in anti-bullying policies will foster compassionate, inclusive environments.
The Minister who will reply to this debate is the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), but a cross-Government approach is essential. Charities have long called for an allergies tsar to co-ordinate efforts across Departments such as Education and Health. The role would champion collaboration, advocate for evidence-based changes and help embed effective policies on the ground. Access to prompt diagnosis and treatment is critical. Allergy UK proposes placing allergy nurses and dietitians in GP surgeries, reducing waiting times from months to weeks and supporting schools in creating healthcare plans.
Before I finish, I have several specific questions for the Minister. The debate has made clear the urgent need for stronger, more consistent protections for children with allergies in our schools. I respect the challenges our schools face, but the safety and wellbeing of our children must come first. I therefore ask the Minister to consider making allergy training, fully funded and supported by the DFE, mandatory for all school staff. That training must be comprehensive, evidence-based and regularly updated.
We should require every school to hold spare adrenalin and AAI pens, with clear protocols for their proper storage, maintenance and use. Those lifesaving devices must, as I have mentioned, be as accessible as defibrillators. Working closely with our colleagues at the Department for Health and Social Care, every child diagnosed with an allergy should have an individual healthcare plan, developed collaboratively with parents, schools and healthcare professionals and embedded within safeguarding policies. We should strengthen reporting requirements so that all allergic reactions and near misses in school are recorded centrally, enabling data-driven improvements in policy. We should support the appointment of an allergy tsar and make sure that organisations such as Ofsted consider a school’s approach to allergies in their inspections.
These policies, set out by various organisations, would provide a real road map to not only meet but exceed international standards for allergy safety in schools. Following these recommendations will help us to create a safer and more consistent environment in which every child with allergies is truly protected and supported. Laws that exist but are not properly implemented are not fit for purpose.
Next week, I will introduce the Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill to legislate for the mandatory training of school staff, allergy policies and spare medication at schools. It is time we took allergies seriously and enabled schools to create safe environments for children to learn and flourish. I hope that, after countless debates in this place and in the House of Commons, we can finally put this issue to bed and put our children’s safety first.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
I was diagnosed with an anaphylactic peanut allergy at the age of seven. Much of the coverage around allergies centres on the devastating occasions when anaphylaxis and avoidable reactions result in tragic deaths. For most allergy sufferers, today’s debate feels much closer to our daily life and is therefore incredibly poignant. The impact of allergic diseases on the lives of children goes far beyond severe and occasional reactions; it impacts every part of their lives.
I begin by endorsing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore); I endorse much of the additional provision he has asked for. In my experience, having a food allergy has meant feeling different and isolated from my peers at school. I was often not able to be involved with school experiences or even rewards for getting my times tables or spelling right, if they were food-based.
I also experienced a high degree of anxiety from my parents when other parents continually sent their children in with peanut butter sandwiches despite repeated warnings, the result of which was always that I, as a seven-year-old, needed to restrict myself further to keep myself safe. Having to take huge precautions when going on school and residential trips, which required me to challenge some cooking staff—adults—who were asking me to eat food that I knew to be unsafe. In a school setting, where good behaviour is often associated with deference towards teachers and other adults, that is very difficult for a child to navigate. On one occasion, a member of the catering staff at an outdoor pursuit residential centre called me a pain in the proverbial—her language was not so polite—for having allergies and refusing to eat unsafe food that was put in front of me. I was 10.
As I got older, I became more resentful of my allergies, always having to carry a messenger bag with adrenalin auto-injectors when out with friends, not being able to eat at the fast food places and restaurants where my friends held birthday parties or went at the weekend, and never being able to sit with them for school dinners in the canteen. One thing that is often not discussed is that I, like many with allergies, know there are things I will never do and places I will never go, as their cuisine is unsuitable for my allergies and there is a lack of medical access while travelling.
Like many allergy sufferers, I have suffered periods of anxiety when my allergies have either caused or become a vehicle for intensifying periods of poor mental health. The early physical symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction are remarkably similar to those of a panic attack: laboured breathing, potential loss of consciousness and what the medical profession call an impending sense of doom. For a child—indeed, throughout life—navigating the difference between anaphylaxis and anxiety can be incredibly difficult when their body is alerting them to threats: real threats that must not be ignored, in the case of allergy, or perceived threats, as often in cases of anxiety. That is an often under-appreciated part of what life is like for young people living with allergies. For allergy sufferers, a life of restriction, anxiety and fear is not just a one-off tragic story; it affects the everyday life of those children.
I would love to be able to say that in the 23 years since I was diagnosed with an anaphylactic allergy, the outlook for children with allergies has become much better. In fact, the biggest change in that time is that the number of people with allergies has more than doubled, while the support and infrastructure for allergy sufferers has remained much the same. The rates are such that one in 13 children now has a food allergy, which equates to two children in every classroom. That is the real importance of this debate. Data shows that 20% of food allergic reactions, and approximately 30% of first-time anaphylactic reactions, like the one we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), occur at school. One in five food allergic reactions occurs outside the school building: on the playground, travelling to and from school, or on school field trips.
Hospital admissions due to food-induced anaphylaxis tripled between 1998 and 2018, with the largest increase seen in children under 15, reflecting a growing incidence of severe allergic reactions. Astonishingly, it is estimated that half a million school days are lost to allergic disease each year. That has a massive impact on the educational attainment of a growing number of young people in our schools. That makes it all the more worrying that 69% of schools do not have in place the recommended safeguards of allergy policy plans, medication or training; that, despite being permitted to carry AAIs since 2017, almost half of all schools do not hold their own life-saving allergy medication; that two in five teachers feel unprepared to respond to a child experiencing an allergic reaction; and that, according to NASUWT research, 67% of teachers have had no formal allergy awareness training.
Earlier this year, I was pleased to attend the launch of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation’s allergy school module. Designed to address the lack of allergy training in schools, it is a comprehensive suite of free training resources designed to empower, include and protect children with food allergies. I have written to every school in my constituency about those fantastic resources. They have been available since January, and a module is coming later in the year for secondary school students.
I regularly speak to schools in my constituency about allergy school, and I have been heartened by the work that many schools are doing to keep allergic pupils safe. Recently, I was heartened when asked, in an interview with young reporters from the Bodnant Bugle at Bodnant community school, about my work with allergy in this place. I also heard how informed pupils and staff are working together with the aim of keeping pupils feeling safe and, crucially, included in their school community. That is a huge stride, but we must do more.
As a champion of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, and a proud member of the APPG on allergy, I am keen to support the progression of its allergy safety action plan. The following calls are most important. All nursery and school staff should be trained in allergy awareness, allergy management, and how to respond in a food allergy emergency, including the administration of medication. Lists and photos of children with food allergies should be available to all staff to ensure that they can be easily identified and their needs can be met throughout the school day. All schools and nurseries should have a specific allergy policy that includes an anaphylaxis plan. All schools and nurseries should have an individual healthcare plan for every child with a diagnosed allergy. Such plans should always include paediatric allergy action plans and an anaphylaxis risk assessment. All schools and nurseries should record and report all known instances of food allergic reactions and, crucially, near misses.
That record keeping should be included in the evaluation criteria for Ofsted inspections. All schools should have an allergy-aware anti-bullying policy. Schools should ensure that their behaviour and anti-bullying policies include awareness of food allergy-related bullying. There should be milk alternatives for free school milk provision; allergy-friendly provision in breakfast clubs, of which we are so proud; requirements on schools to publish their catering information and the allergy assessments done by school catering staff and agencies; and provision for children who cannot safely eat school dinners, in recognition of the fact that parents of food-allergic children spend an average of 14.4% extra on their weekly food shop.
Since I became an MP, I have met so many children who suffer through allergic disease and whose experiences of growing up with allergies are painfully similar to mine, although they are 20 years apart. I hope the work that we will discuss this afternoon ensures that allergic children have a much better, safer experience of school in the future.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this debate and for his advocacy and hard work to ensure that children with allergies are kept safe at school. He has outlined the work required to assist them in their education. I have close friends in my constituency who have experienced with their children what my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) described, so I thank them for their advocacy.
I pay tribute to Allergy UK for its dedication in this area. In February, I visited its headquarters in Crayford in my constituency, in the deepest eastern part of south-east London. During my visit, I heard from an Allergy UK supporter who had benefited from its dietitian service for her young baby. I welcome Allergy UK’s campaign to introduce access to allergy dietitians through GP surgeries in each health region. I am pleased to be an Allergy UK champion, and I support it in its work to keep every person with an allergy across the UK safe.
Keeping children safe at school is vital. Allergy UK estimates that 40% of children have been diagnosed with an allergy, and that one in 12 young children suffer from a food allergy. As we are all aware, food allergies can be devastating and, in the worst cases, deadly. It is therefore crucial that we ensure that teachers and training staff have the correct training and allergen awareness. For the worst-case scenarios, it is crucial that every staff member knows how to provide life-saving care and administer life-saving medication.
We have all heard about and read heartbreaking stories of entirely avoidable deaths. I am sure that, with the correct training and equipment, many such situations could have ended entirely differently. I therefore welcome the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch will introduce next week, on 9 July, which would ensure that schools are required to maintain an allergy management policy, and would require allergy training for staff in schools. I believe those are vital measures to ensure that children are safeguarded and protected at school. If we implement those measures, parents will be able to send their children to school in the knowledge that their allergies will not hold them back from accessing a well-rounded and fulfilling education.
Parents should not have to worry about their child receiving proper care and safeguarding when they send them off to school every morning, but too many parents of children with allergies worry every day that there may be traces of allergens in food and the school environment. As we know, children share food or could use someone else’s water bottle by mistake. It is therefore vital that the safety and medical risks are decreased by allergy awareness management and emergency response training provided to all education staff.
I pay tribute to Allergy UK’s partnership with the Allergy Team, which has created essential allergy training for schools to help them confidently manage allergies and anaphylaxis to ensure a safer environment for all students and staff. Teachers need to be given the tools and skills they need to deal with medical emergencies quickly and calmly. Through that partnership, I hope schools will be safer for children with allergies.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch for securing this important debate. We have heard some truly tragic stories about too many children falling ill due to a lack of training or proper equipment on allergen control. I hope that, through this debate and my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, we can ensure that the additional safeguarding that children with allergies require in schools is introduced.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this debate on an issue that has such a wide-ranging impact and is very close to my heart. I know that he works incredibly hard to champion people with allergies and the challenges they face. As the newly-elected chair of the APPG on allergy, I thank him dearly for his efforts.
I have complex allergies that impact my everyday life. My first allergic reaction happened when I was two years old, when I took a bite out of a raw fish finger waiting to go in the oven. I scared the living daylights out of my mother, as my face and hands swelled up until it looked like, in her words, I had gone 10 rounds with Frank Bruno. I have lived with allergies all my life, as has my son, and have worked alongside many parents and children’s professionals in my 20 years of teaching. Navigating the world of allergies is difficult. The advice I have been given has been inconsistent and sometimes outright dangerous. There is simply not enough training or education for people to understand the issues and mitigate the harm.
Eating anywhere is difficult. Most businesses would rather lose my custom and exclude me with a blanket of “may contain” and “cannot guarantee” notices than provide the information needed to eat safely. I fully appreciate that, in a world where we have acceptable levels of contaminants in food, there will never be 100% certainty, but I have been asked to sign waivers for pizzas and referred to companies’ policies, where pubs, clubs or outlets have refused to share ingredients that would allow me to make an informed choice. I have been insulted, ignored, condescended and asked to show my auto-injectors to prove that I am not just being fussy.
I have difficulty navigating this world, and yet we expect children to do the same, without the same level of understanding or autonomy over their situation. The number of children with allergies has soared, with two children in every classroom diagnosed with allergies. Most of our schools do a brilliant job of trying to support and care for those children, but children’s allergies are routinely excluding and stigmatising them at school. They want to carry their own tray at lunchtime alongside their peers. They want to sit on the same tables with friends, not be segregated. They want to be able to eat puddings and take treats the teacher has brought in. The protections are simply not there to allow that to happen. School parties, discos, end-of-term treats and the dreaded cake day in schools present significant threats to children and exclude them from participation.
When my eldest attended residential trips, he was sent with four days-worth of frozen meals packed up in an icebox because they could not guarantee safe food for his trip. I know other parents who have been required to attend school trips so that they can safeguard their children. I also know at first hand that school staff time is stretched and there are limits under the current system. The last 14 years have seen cuts in teachers’ expertise, teaching assistants and support staff, as well as larger class sizes and lower ratios. We are faced with a growing need.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) is talking about cuts. As a parent of a child with multiple allergies, I used to get support from Leicestershire county council for nutritional services, but that has all gone. It was one of the first areas that local authorities cut. Does my hon. Friend agree that that reduction in support has made life for parents of children with allergies so much harder than it needs to be?
Jodie Gosling
Absolutely. With my eldest son, we had Sure Start centres available, and I had access to support from health visiting teams. With my daughter, who has a less impactful allergy, there has been little support, and we are still waiting, at 12 years of age, for referrals to dietitians.
We need to ensure that children with allergies stay safe in education, and to do so, we need clarity of training, access to EpiPens at all times, and clear procedures to make sure they are accessible for an effective response. We need a planned response, a whole-school risk assessment, individual healthcare, and clear pathways to make sure that staff are not only aware of the children but confident and able to respond quickly and effectively, not just going to the Tupperware box in the back of the dusty office cupboard.
I have talked to school leaders, teachers, nurseries and, most importantly, students in my constituency, and they echo the need for clarity and consistency in training and access to emergency EpiPens. The Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2017 allow schools to obtain auto-injectors for emergency use, but they are not required to, and this provision does not extend to early years.
Our early years settings are key to children’s development, providing new experiences and a place for exploring sensory development, and widening horizons and diets. Nurseries have cultures of trying new things, but they are also where many children have their first experience of allergens and allergic reactions. As we have heard today from first-hand experience, this can be quite terrifying for those involved. In these circumstances, no auto-injectors would be held by the setting, as they simply would not know that they needed to use them. A requirement to have auto-injectors as part of a standard first aid kit—with protocols and an anaphylaxis response team—would significantly reduce the risk of serious harm from those first reactions.
The group Spare Pens in Schools highlighted that most children, like mine, will have been accidentally exposed every two or three years. Pancake day with my child who is allergic to meat, wheat and eggs was, as I am sure hon. Members can imagine, a yearly trial. I would wait for the call at work to be asked if they needed to use the AAIs, which realistically would already be too late. A structured healthcare plan would not only reduce the incidence of accidental exposure, but provide a planned, effective response.
Issues around the short shelf life of auto-injectors can cause challenges with ad hoc school policies—the Tupperware box at the back of the cupboard still needs checking frequently, as many EpiPens remain in date for six months or less. A plan and protocol built into schools’ existing first-aid responses would mean checking the date as a matter of course, alongside other equipment—not when things are needed quickly and urgently.
As we await the publication of a national allergy strategy, which we hope to see later this year, questions remain about support for implementation. At present, the management of allergies is left to individual schools and trusts. The lack of national leadership and a cohesive strategy means that the experience of, and support for, children with allergies varies widely.
Research by the Benedict Blythe Foundation showed that, in 2024, as we heard, one in three schools had no allergy policy in place, while a quarter had no training on allergies, anaphylaxis or a plan for emergencies. Data from the national child mortality database shows that between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2023, two children died as a result of anaphylaxis in our schools. A 2015 report showed a 615% increase in hospital admissions. However, we do not routinely keep that data and have no idea of the true impact on our children’s lives in schools. It is essential that a database is created and maintained for an evidence-led approach.
I call on the Minister to pay particular attention to the calls for auto-injectors in all education settings, for a national allergy strategy in response to this debate, and to recognise that this will require cross-departmental working. Allergies reach into all areas of our lives: schools, housing, health, business, sport, culture—everything a child wishes to do can be affected by their allergies.
To achieve the cohesion we need in a national allergy strategy, it is essential that we work cross-departmentally. Adam Fox OBE, who chairs the National Allergy Strategy Group, has been instrumental in bringing a strategy forward. I would welcome the Minister joining us at our APPG to discuss further how we can best address the issues raised today; and how an allergy tsar could draw together those complex issues and provide proper support not just for our children, but for all allergy sufferers.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this debate and for his forthcoming introduction of the school allergy safety Bill to Parliament. As a parent, I understand the concerns when a child starts their school life. We hope that they settle well, are happy making friends and enjoy learning. The anxiety that comes when our children have an allergy, particularly a severe one, must be enormous. It is one that I cannot truly understand, not having experienced it, but I have been really moved by what I have heard today from Members who have.
There are 680,000 pupils in England with an allergy, so there are also many more anxious parents. The hon. Member said that he would not talk about specific cases, and I will also respect that. Sadly, there have been a number of tragic cases in the last few years, and our thoughts in this debate are surely with those families. It is important to recognise that the coroners’ reports in those cases have cited a lack of in-date adrenalin devices, inadequate training of staff and confusion about the process, with those delays ultimately resulting in deaths. It needs to be a given that parents can feel assured that their children’s school can deal with any allergy incidents, whether minor or life-threatening.
It is estimated that around two children in every classroom have an allergy of some kind. Food allergies, which can be life-threatening, are particularly concerning in young children, between 5% and 8% of whom are affected, compared with 1% or 2% of adults. Studies have shown that the incidence of food allergies nearly doubled between 2008 and 2018, and we can see from an increase of 161% in hospital admissions over the last two decades that the problem is getting worse. There has been some welcome progress on research into prevention, but we have to make sure that young people are safe in schools.
In addition to the effect on physical health, it is also important to look at the other ways in which having an allergy affects children. It can have a huge impact on key areas of their lives, including disrupting their education and limiting their social lives. Again, I refer to the lived experience shared by the hon. Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) and for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) of the psychological stress and anxiety from living with this.
Allergy UK’s research shows that 61% of children with food allergies avoid social situations, such as birthday parties, to reduce risk. When we consider that number, it is really sad to know that there are so many children missing out on playing with friends or making new ones, and just enjoying what ought to be care-free moments outside school life. Occasions such as school trips and cultural celebrations in school can lead to increased levels of stress for children, parents and carers, due to uncertainty over allergen exposure and inconsistent implementation of safety practices.
There then comes the time when children move schools, from primary to secondary, or even head off to further or higher education, which brings further stress because there is not a standardised process for reviewing or updating allergy care plans across those transitions, which can lead to gaps in provision and inconsistent safety protocols. Again, that just increases stress and anxiety all the time.
We know that, in some cases, allergies can lead to severe and life-threatening reactions, so it is essential that schools have the right level of equipment to deal with those emergencies and that staff have received sufficient training. However, as many Members have observed, that is simply not happening in schools. Although there is Department for Education guidance on school food standards and allergy guidance, there is now lots of research showing that it is not enough just to have the guidance; we really need to go further. In collaboration with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the national teachers’ union, the NASUWT, surveyed nearly 2,000 teachers across the UK and revealed really concerning findings. I will go into just a few of those and I hope that Members find them interesting.
Despite 95% of the teachers saying that there were pupils at their school with allergies, only 40% said that their school had an allergy policy; 46% said that they did not know whether there was a policy; and 13% said definitively that their school had no allergy policy. On top of that, when it came to training on administering an adrenalin pen, only 28% of teachers said that they had received training in the current academic year; 20% had received training last year; 34% said that they had received training but not in the last two academic years; and 17.5% said that they had never received any training at all. I found those figures fascinating—just the distribution and the inconsistency across that. There were also questions about broader allergy training, such as on adapting classroom practices to reduce the risk and ensuring that activities are safe but inclusive. The survey found that two thirds of respondents had never received any training on those elements.
Research carried out last year by the Benedict Blythe Foundation found that 70% of schools—as has been mentioned—did not have spare allergy pens, allergy trained staff or a school allergy policy. There is no current requirement for schools to provide those, even for pupils at high risk. School staff look after our children day in and day out, which is a huge responsibility on their shoulders. Expecting them to act in an emergency without the proper equipment or training is just not reasonable.
Finally, I draw attention to Allergy UK’s trial, which embedded specialist allergy nurses and dietitians in primary care settings. It has been mentioned already, but with that earlier support for families and clearer clinical guidance to inform school-based care, we get safer day-to-day management for children with complex allergy needs. The trial saw waiting times reduced dramatically: 95% of patients were managed safely within primary care, and it cut unnecessary referrals to secondary care to just 5%.
The Liberal Democrats believe that these kinds of pilots, which invest in public health and early access to community services, reduce the spend on NHS crisis firefighting and ultimately save money in the long term. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take account of the evidence from the Allergy UK trial and look to roll that pilot out nationally in a bid to bring about positive change in schools and beyond. Surely we owe it to children, parents, carers and staff working in schools to make sure that those schools are safe places for everyone.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this important debate, which he opened by telling a frightening story about his own child. I am sorry that he is also suffering in a smaller way this afternoon, but we never would have known; he did a good job of making his case. We also heard good speeches from the hon. Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), which included stories about their own frightening experiences and fears of social exclusion.
As other Members have done, I thank some of the groups that do great work on this subject, including the Benedict Blythe Foundation, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Anaphylaxis UK and Allergy UK. When I was the Minister for public health, I met some of the parents and others who had lost loved ones, and those who were working with these campaign groups. I was struck by not only the fear that people experience that something bad or terrible will happen, but that sense of people being excluded or missing out, or feeling that they cannot do things because they are not getting the information or protection they need. That is a hugely important part of the discussion.
I will touch on some of the things that the previous Government did, not to say that everything is fixed—of course it is not—but to talk about how we got to this point. One thing that made a big difference was the creation of Natasha’s law in 2019, which requires all prepackaged food products to display all the key 14 allergen ingredients in bold. We started to join up the discussion across Government—something Members have called for this afternoon—with the expert advisory group for allergy. There is potentially scope to go further, and a number of Members have talked about the argument for an allergy tsar. I am sympathetic to the idea of having, in some way, shape or form, better cross-Government join-up of policy; it is a sensible thing that we need.
In schools, we introduced a duty on governing boards to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions, so that they are all supported to actively play a part in school life. In practical terms, in 2017 we changed the law to enable schools to have their own supply of adrenalin auto-injectors for use. There is scope to go much further, but half of schools have them, up from relatively few before that change in the law. Of course, a conclusion from this debate is that there is lots of scope for pens to be available in more schools, and for us to do more to ensure that they are in date and that everyone knows where they are so they can be used at a useful point.
One of the bigger things we did was bring in the statutory school food standards in 2015, which removed things like nuts as an acceptable snack. We got all schools to do a risk assessment of the way they handle these issues. We also updated the allergy advice for schools more broadly to emphasise the importance of awareness-raising about common allergies and to get more staff to recognise symptoms, particularly anaphylaxis. Again, as hon. Members have pointed out, there is scope to go further to improve the training of teachers across the board.
One thing that has not been mentioned so far is the ongoing debate about Owen’s law, and the availability of information about ingredients in restaurants and settings where food is not prepackaged. It is a complex debate, but there is clearly scope to do better and to ensure that children and people of all ages feel more included in our society. I wish Ministers well in coming to a landing on some of these questions. Even just the discussion about them and the campaign itself is doing a lot of good to get providers to change their behaviour and to be more inclusive.
There has been progress, but, as Members have said, there is a lot more to do in our schools to ensure that children are kept safe and can play a full part in school life and in their broader community, without having to worry or constantly duck out of or be excluded from activities that they want to be part of. This has not been a politically contentious debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the next steps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing and opening this debate. I have greatly valued the opportunity to listen to his insights and hear the arguments on this important topic, especially given his personal experience with his family. I know that all hon. Members will today be thinking of their constituents and families who have lost loved ones as a result of allergies.
I acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) to this debate, as well as their contributions to the APPG or as allergy champions. I thank them for their hard work and for the priority that they are giving to this important topic for children, early years and schools.
I absolutely understand that allergies can be worrying for parents and pupils. When parents send their children to school, it is only right and natural that they expect them to be kept safe. For parents of children with allergies, there is understandably an additional level of concern. Allergies can be complex conditions and can range enormously in severity. While much of the debate focuses on food allergies, it is important to note that not all allergens are food, which makes the issue more complicated for individuals to manage. Allergies are therefore a highly individual condition, so there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
Last month, I was lucky enough to visit Edith Neville primary school with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. I got to see at first hand how allergy awareness training can increase the safety of pupils with food allergies and allow them to feel fully involved in school activities. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that allergies are complex and, by their very nature, require individualised approaches. These issues are best dealt with locally. That is why the Government have put in place a number of pieces of legislation, as well as guidance for schools and parents, covering a range of areas and circumstances. We are very aware of recent calls to strengthen the law around allergies, with specific references to voluntary approaches and voluntary guidance.
I stress that section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 places a legal duty on schools to
“make arrangements for supporting pupils at the school with medical conditions”
including allergies, and that governing bodies must have regard to the accompanying statutory guidance supporting pupils with medical conditions when carrying out their duties. The guidance makes it clear that schools should ensure that they are aware of any pupils with allergies, and have processes in place to ensure that those can be well managed. The guidance sets out that a school’s policy should be clear that any member of the school’s staff providing support to a pupil with medical needs should have received suitable training. The Department’s allergy guidance for schools signpost them to allergy available resources and training. I again stress that individual schools are best placed to work with parents to put in place a system that works for the school, parents and individual children.
Individual healthcare plans can set out arrangements for specific pupils’ medical needs, and schools will need to draw on, or seek advice from, clinicians on how the individual’s medical condition should be managed while in school. That is particularly important where children and young people have conditions that, if not managed effectively, could pose a high risk to their health and safety. Individual healthcare plans will be particularly important where conditions fluctuate or there is a high risk that emergency intervention will be needed. They are likely to be helpful in the majority of other cases, especially where medical conditions are long term and complex. However, not all children will require one.
In addition to the section 100 duty, schools are subject to other requirements. For example, in the UK, food businesses must inform consumers if they use any of the 14 mandatory allergens as ingredients in the food that they provide. How allergen information should be provided depends on whether the food is prepackaged, non-prepackaged or prepacked for direct sale. That includes food provided by institutions including school caterers, who have the responsibility to protect individuals in their care.
As hon. Members may know, rules on the provision of food labelling are set out primarily in the retained EU Food Information Regulations 2014. These rules include a requirement to identify to consumers the presence of any of the 14 mandatory allergens, including cereals containing gluten, eggs, fish and milk.
The Department for Education works closely with the Food Standards Agency on all matters relating to school food. The FSA provides a free food allergy and intolerance online training course, which offers practical advice to local authority law enforcement officers and anyone who wants to learn more about food allergies, such as those working in the food manufacturing and catering industries. The FSA also offers a host of other training, technical documents and guidance documents, including information on the 14 most common allergens, food labelling requirements, and the handling of allergen ingredients.
Auto-injectors can be vital if a child suffers an allergic reaction. To support schools in meeting the needs of children with allergies, the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2017 were passed and they allow schools to obtain and hold spare adrenalin auto-injectors for administration to pupils in an emergency. The Department for Health and Social Care has produced guidance on the use of these injectors and emergency inhalers in schools, including the purchase of spares. The guidance makes it clear that any adrenalin auto-injectors held by a school should be considered as a back-up device and not as a replacement for pupils’ own adrenalin auto-injectors.
Beyond this, families are also able to play an important role in managing their child’s condition. We are very clear with schools that no one will know a child’s needs as well as their parents, and that schools should work closely together with parents. The parents of children with allergies will work with medical professionals and other organisations to plan for and navigate their child’s specific needs, and parents should be fully consulted and engaged in any discussions about their child’s allergies. Schools will also need to ensure that parents and carers of children with food allergies or intolerances are given information about allergic ingredients used in the foods available, and good communication between parents and schools about allergies and pupils’ needs is essential to keep children safe while they are in school.
Since March 2024, the Department has reminded schools of their duties concerning pupils with allergies every six months, via the DFE’s bulletin to the education sector. These reminders have included links to Government guidance, as well as signposting to credible resources from the charitable sector, including the voluntary schools allergy code, which is co-produced by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, the Independent Schools’ Bursars Association and the Allergy Team.
For younger children, the early years foundation stage framework sets the standards that all registered early years providers must meet for the learning, development and care of children from birth to the age of five. The EYFS states that before a child is admitted to an early years setting, the provider must obtain information about any special dietary requirements, preferences or food allergies the child has, as well as any other special health requirements. Providers must also have a policy and procedures for administering medicines, and they must have systems to obtain information about a child’s needs for medicines and to keep this information up to date. Training must be provided for staff where the administration of medicine requires medical or technical knowledge.
There is also a requirement for at least one person who has a current paediatric first aid certificate to be on the premises and available at all times when children are present, and they must also accompany children on outings. The PFA criteria is clear that the training should include being able to help a baby or child suffering from anaphylactic shock. There is also a requirement within the EYFS regarding adequate supervision. This is explicit that while children are eating, they must always be in sight and hearing of an adult—not within sight or hearing—to help educators to notice the signs of an allergic reaction as soon as they are present and allow them to act quickly.
The new early years educator level 3 qualification criteria came into force in September 2024, ensuring that early years educators have an understanding of allergies and anaphylaxis. Following consultation last year and subject to parliamentary procedure, we will introduce changes to the safeguarding requirements of the EYFS from September this year. They will include a new safety eating section containing a number of requirements relating to allergies, such as a requirement for providers or childminders to have ongoing discussions with parents and/or carers about special dietary requirements, including food allergies and intolerances that a child may have, as well as a requirement to develop allergy action plans, where appropriate, to manage them.
In addition, providers and childminders will be required to ensure that all staff are aware of the symptoms and treatments for allergies and anaphylaxis and the differences between allergies and intolerances, and that they have an understanding that children can develop allergies at any time. That is particularly pertinent during the introduction of solid foods, which is sometimes called complementary feeding or weaning. It will also be a requirement that while children are eating there should always be a member of staff in the room who holds a valid first aid certificate. Where possible, providers and childminders should also sit facing children while they eat, to ensure that children are eating in a way that prevents choking and food sharing, and so that the provider is aware of unexpected allergic reactions.
From September, early years providers will be required to have regard to the new nutrition guidance published in May this year. It includes a section on food allergies, and it provides information on the symptoms of both allergic reactions and anaphylaxis, as well as common food allergens. It also provides links to helpful resources, such as the Food Standards Agency’s free food allergy training.
This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and tackling child poverty. We have now announced that we are extending free school meals to children from households in receipt of universal credit from September 2026. This will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty and will put £500 back into families’ pockets, supporting parents in a decisive action to improve lives ahead of the child poverty strategy coming later this year. The Department will expect schools to make every effort to ensure that eligible pupils with allergies can benefit from that entitlement.
In deciding what is reasonable, schools and their caterers are expected to take into account factors such as the type of diet required by the child with allergies, the number of children in a similar position and the cost of making suitable food available. It is important that schools have a culture of inclusivity, and we expect schools to do what they can to ensure that no child is unnecessarily disadvantaged or made to feel disadvantaged.
The same applies to breakfast clubs. The Government are committed to delivering on our pledge to introduce breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will mean that every state-funded school with children on the roll from reception to year 6 will be required to offer a free breakfast club before the start of each school day. This will ensure that every child, regardless of circumstance, has a supportive start to the school day.
I have outlined the various legislation and guidance that covers allergies in schools. We do, of course, keep those policies under review, and we welcome feedback on how we can better support schools’ implementation of them. Senior DFE officials sit on the expert advisory group for allergy, which is convened by colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the National Allergy Strategy Group, and which plans to publish a 10-year strategy later this year. It will make recommendations to Government on levers that can improve the lives of people living with allergies, including in education. I encourage stakeholders to feed any ideas on those issues to officials via that route.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch again for securing this debate and for his instructive, insightful and personal contribution, and I thank all hon. Members, including those with lived experience, for their speeches and interventions this afternoon.
Chris Bloore
Whenever I meet the Minister, I have a bad habit of simply asking for things. I appreciate that yet again I am in this place asking for something, but such is the job.
I thank all those who contributed to the debate, as well as someone else who is in the room but did not contribute because she is a Member of the other place: Baroness Kennedy. I thank her for all her work on the subject in both her professional and her political life. More than many, she has raised the importance of the issue and the discourse around it. I thank her for what she does, day to day.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) for her remarks, which were informed both by her role on the APPG and by her personal experience. I feel slightly fraudulent, because I think I secured this debate just ahead of her. Her contribution was a lived story about what it is like to suffer from these allergies and the impact that they can have on the way a person grows up—but certainly not on her attainment, because she is in this place, doing an incredible job. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling). I was astounded to hear the stories about the challenges that she has faced, simply being in this place, in keeping herself safe, let alone the stories that she has told about her son.
I always listen intently to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). He was absolutely right to make those points about the quality of life for our children in our schools. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), who is no longer in her place. She was absolutely right to highlight the fact that parents have lost support from county councils.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for his contribution. He was absolutely right to raise the damning statistics that have been found in many pieces of research in the last 18 months. I thank the spokesperson for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien). He noted what has improved in the past two to three years, and the work that has been done in this place, but he also addressed Owen’s law and the challenges that we still face in moving forward on the issue. Of course, I also thank the organisations that we have all mentioned.
I would like to return to the Minister’s comments. The statistics on the number of children who are developing allergies and are having incidents in schools are going only one way. Laws are fit for purpose only if they are delivered appropriately, and only if the people who serve under them are accountable for their actions. It is clear both from this debate and from the information in the public domain that the laws we have in place right now are not meeting the safety needs of our children.
The Minister’s response echoed many responses that have been given before in this place. I welcome the Government’s contribution on breakfast clubs and school nursery places, but the canary in the coalmine is right in front of us. There are things happening in our schools that should not be happening. There are articles in the national newspapers about what has happened when things have gone wrong.
The complexity of the issue should not be a vice. We cannot let it defeat us in this place; we should be able to rise to the occasion and change things. We should not have to wait for things to go wrong again before we act. I am afraid that this will not be the last time that I raise the issue. I plan to raise it not just next week, but throughout my short time in this place, I am sure. We can do more, and we can do better. This is not just about the life chances of our children; sometimes it is their very life itself.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding children with allergies at school.