Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

12. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

13. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

Following a 40% drop in apprenticeship starts over the previous decade, we are now seeing them rise for those under 25, and achievement rates are also up. We want an extra 50,000 young people to benefit from apprenticeships. That is why we are introducing new grants for small and medium-sized businesses to take on apprentices, and why we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

Education is a devolved matter, so the one thing I can do as a Minister in this Parliament is encourage people to vote for Scottish Labour and for Anas Sarwar to be the First Minister of Scotland. The hon. Member is right to highlight the absolutely shameful record of the Scottish National party on education, not only in its approach to the curriculum, teacher training and standards, but in withdrawing from PISA—the programme for international student assessment. The lack of progress that has been made on education north of the border is shocking. This Government are taking bold steps with SMEs to ensure that we create routes to apprenticeships for 50,000 more young people.

[Dr Johnson]

On Thursday this week an excellent apprentice in my office will graduate with a first-class degree. Unfortunately, no one will be able to follow in his excellent footsteps, because the Government have withdrawn funding for the chartered management degree apprenticeship. Given the benefits of degree apprenticeships, will the Minister please reconsider?

[Josh MacAlister]

This Government made changes to the apprenticeship levy and have introduced the growth and skills levy to focus the apprenticeship system where it should be focused. Most Members across the House would agree that with the apprenticeship levy—now the growth and skills levy—we needed originally to create routes for those who were not able to go to university to achieve level 4 and above qualifications. That is where this Government are focusing our attention and we will not apologise for that, because those are the young people who are missing out on opportunities at the moment and need an apprenticeship system that is focused on them.

“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

I sincerely hope my hon. Friend is right and that the Government will do the right thing as per the law.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. Does she feel, as I do, that a lack of political courage is what has delayed the new guidance? That lack of political courage has fallen on the heads of people having to make these decisions, such as nurses on wards, people working in sports centres and the like. They do not have the Government guidance to stand behind and say, “This is what the law says. This is what I’ve got to do”, so they are having to make decisions and then take the flak and sometimes abuse from people who are disappointed by their choice.

[Carla Lockhart]

I will certainly move on to some examples where there has been a great personal cost to folks who have had to lead the way on this issue.

One year later, we still need clarity on workplace regulations. Workplaces are in limbo because the revised code of practice will not even apply to them. One year later, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce new guidance specifically for the NHS. Last April, he promised that it would be published within weeks. The silence is deafening. These delays speak for themselves. This is not a grey area; it is not complicated. It is a failure to act on a simple legal and biological truth. Women’s safety is not a political plaything, and it should never be treated as one. The lack of progress comes at a real human cost to women across the UK.

I recently hosted Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses here in Parliament, and I am delighted that they are in the Public Gallery watching proceedings. They found themselves in the eye of the storm simply for upholding women’s rights. They are dedicated NHS professionals, not campaigners, yet they were hounded at work and dragged through the courts, not for wrongdoing, but for stating a basic biological fact. Their testimonies are deeply moving. Some of them are mothers of young children, carrying the strain not just at work, but at home.

After Jennifer Melle referred to a biological male and convicted paedophile as “Mr”, she was suspended for two years, unable to work, and she was threatened with revocation of her licence to practice. Where was her nursing union, which should have stood with her in her hour of need? It was missing in action, afraid to counter the wokeness within. Jennifer believes that what happened to her was a punishment for whistleblowing. She said:

“I did not always show it, but I was deeply traumatised by what had happened to me…I lived under fear, anxiety, and the possibility of losing the job I loved.”

When we compare Jennifer Melle’s case with the Darlington nurses’ case, we can see a pattern emerging. After a biological male was allowed to use their changing room, the Darlington nurses raised legitimate concerns about privacy and safety. Instead of being listened to, they were told they needed to be “re-educated” and to “broaden their mindset”. They were left with no other option but to take legal action. These nurses were already working flat out, caring for others, holding the system together and doing their job with skill and dedication every single day. That should be enough. They should not have been forced to fight for their legal rights.

Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses have shown tremendous courage and conviction, but let us be honest, that has come at a price: a personal toll, a professional toll, time, stress and reputation. Despite their legal victories, the punishment has been in the process. Women across the country are watching these legal cases unfolding and drawing the obvious conclusion: “Keep your head down or risk your livelihood.” The result is a chilling effect that should trouble every Member of this House.

Women are self-censoring. They are being forced to choose between telling the truth and keeping their jobs. They see colleagues hauled before tribunals, threatened with professional sanctions and subjected to reputational harm. Understandably, they often decide that it is simply not worth the risk. Bethany Hutchison, one of the Darlington nurses, put it this way:

“A culture of fear took over, not among those breaking safeguarding norms, but among the women raising concerns. Many vulnerable colleagues, often the breadwinners in their households, felt intimidated into dropping their complaints, until only eight of us remained.”

That is what happens when an institution closes rank and sidelines women’s voices.

It should not be down to individual women to contest gender ideology in the workplace. The Government should be backing women all the way, ensuring that they are treated with the safety and dignity that they deserve. Instead, a whole year has passed and still those on the frontline are being left to navigate these complex and sensitive issues alone. Silence is not neutral; it sends a clear message that women’s rights come second to political sensitivities and noisy activists. A ruling that exists only on paper is not enough. The Government must act, not with warm words, but with real, practical guidance that ensures that women are protected, not punished, for asserting their rights.

To briefly address the position in Northern Ireland, it is quite frankly extraordinary that we are even having to contemplate a different application of the ruling within the United Kingdom. The suggestion that the Windsor framework could create divergence on something as fundamental as the definition of a woman raises serious questions about sovereignty and equal rights across this country. Women in Northern Ireland should not have less clarity or protection than women in England, Scotland or Wales. I call on the Minister to give absolute clarity that this UK Government will stand up for women in Northern Ireland.

I am glad that, despite some of the noise and legal challenges around this issue, our Education Minister has moved to release guidance to schools. He made it clear that single-sex spaces in schools should be based on biological sex and that the safety, dignity and privacy of girls must be protected. That was a proportionate and practical response to the law as it stands and I welcome it. That stands in stark contrast to the delays that we are seeing elsewhere.

I end with three requests of the Government. First, I urge the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the EHRC’s updated code of practice before this House as a matter of urgency—no more prevaricating; no more delay. While the Minister has today finally indicated that that will happen in May, we must ask why clarity has not been provided far sooner. Secondly, I urge the Minister to provide guidance for workplaces. Employers must be left in no doubt that single-sex spaces are reserved for people of the same biological sex. No employee should be compelled to use a person’s preferred pronouns.

Thirdly, I urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fulfil his promise and issue guidance on single-sex spaces in the NHS specifically. In the absence of leadership from the Government, others have already stepped in. The Darlington Nursing Union and the Christian Legal Centre have already produced draft guidance for NHS trusts. It is ready, workable and would help ensure that no more women are forced to endure what Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses faced. I thank Christian Concern for its support for Jennifer and the Darlington nurses.

Let us be clear: the For Women Scotland ruling was a victory on paper, but in many cases it still needs implementing in practice. Biology should not be disputed in any sector. A woman is not a feeling. A woman is not an identity. A woman is a biological reality. We must act now to ensure that women are heard, protected and respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate. We are so used to having small time limits for these debates that I am afraid I have not prepared anything like as much as I would want to say.

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex, not gender. A woman is an adult human female, and a male is an adult human male. That is, of course, what the vast majority of the public know simply to be true. The Supreme Court judgment was won by three courageous and formidable women: Susan, Marion and Trina, known as For Women Scotland. It was a victory for women’s rights and for gay rights as well.

Lesbians have been at the sharp end of this campaign to erode women’s rights. If the Scottish Government, Amnesty International and activist groups such as the so-called Good Law Project had their way, anyone at all could call themselves a lesbian. A lesbian would no longer simply be a woman who is attracted to other women, but could be any man calling himself a lesbian. Biological men—mostly those without any reassignment surgery—label themselves as lesbian, but they are simply men attracted to women, so straight men. Yet the lesbians are the “bigots” and “transphobes” if they dare to point that out.

This also plays out daily in the political sphere. Many activists in political parties and politicians, and some political leaders themselves, are wedded firmly to this nonsensical ideology.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. Does she share my concern that it plays out in the scientific arena as well? The UK Health Security Agency has been collecting data in relation to sexual health infections on the basis of gender rather than sex.

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely. Of course, that is the hon. Member’s area of expertise. I know many health professionals who are incredibly frustrated at this simple twisting of facts, which should not be done at all in the NHS. I thank her for pointing that out.

With a few admirable exceptions, many Members of Parliament are unable to identify or define a woman. They reject that women’s spaces must be exclusively for biological women and have decided that those of us intent on the Equality Act being upheld are evil incarnate.

For centuries, women have had to fight for our rights. We have had to fight male threats of violence and male acts of violence. We are used to having to protect ourselves and our spaces. The very least we should expect from our own Government is the leadership and conviction to back those rights with basic and fundamental legislation. The Labour Government did that in 2010, yet here we are, 16 years later, having to force the current Government to uphold and enforce the law, and make it crystal clear to the NHS, sporting bodies, membership organisations and Government Departments that the law must be followed and adhered to—that is their job.

While the Secretary of State says that her Government have

“always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”,

men who choose to identify as women are still permitted to receive care on women’s hospital wards, access women’s toilets—including in this building—compete in the women’s category in parkrun and take women’s places in grassroots sports, and there are still men in women’s prisons. Actions speak louder than words. The law is the law, so what exactly are the Government waiting for, and why are they incapable of showing even the most basic leadership?

The Supreme Court has been clear, and trans-identifying people remain protected in law under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. None of their protections or rights have been taken away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Duffield]

That is exactly right. We are not talking about gender identity. We are talking about the law as it adheres to biological men and women.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rosie Duffield]

For the very last time.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady has talked about the courage of the people who stood up on this issue, but will she reflect on the people who felt censored? For example, I spoke to a young lady in my constituency who participated in a hockey club, but she stopped going. The parents of another girl stopped her going to the same club, because there was a man on the young ladies’ hockey team who insisted on using the changing room and the girls felt uncomfortable changing in front of him. The issue is reducing the participation of particularly young women in sport, which is regrettable. Guidance from the Government to make things clear will help to ensure that women can participate in sport fairly and safely.

[Rosie Duffield]

The hon. Member makes a good point. MPs on my side of the argument will certainly hear that time and time again from parents. There is a group called the Bayswater group whose members have gone through the problems and difficulties of their children wanting to transition from a very early age, with all the categories of sport that they should or should not go into. Guidance would really help those parents, but certainly girls should not feel that they should not participate.

All women on this side of the argument have felt intimidated at some point, not just by the death threats—those are passé by now—but by the signs and the balaclavas outside, and by the rubbish about it coming from both sides. I have lived this for nearly a decade; it is not both sides. It would be lovely to end all the intimidation. I have been in the Labour party for a long time, and, sadly, there are women now in government who have always been on my side in secret gender-critical groups but do not have the courage to speak up when in government. That is a drastic lack of leadership and lack of courage. I feel very sorry for them.

I say to the Government that women are watching and men are watching. Women will be voting at the local elections, and most people in this country are women. The Government have a problem. Their problem is not that the Supreme Court ruling is too complicated to understand or implement, but that it is too clear for people to continue to misrepresent our activists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Whenever the hon. Lady refers to me as being “interesting”, I think that says that she and I have a different opinion on an issue. The Scottish courts have taken that legal decision. I am sure that the hon. Lady would always want to support the legal decisions in the land, whatever they may be and whether she likes them or not.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would reflect that there is a biological difference between an individual with a disorder of sexual differentiation, whom the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to as an intersex individual, and a biological male who feels that he prefers and is more comfortable living his life as though he were a woman.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her clear message. She reiterates the position that I and many others in the Chamber hold.

Back home in Northern Ireland, Democratic Unionist party Ministers have appropriately taken decisive action, because the safety of our daughters—in my case, my granddaughters—in school changing rooms and the integrity of women’s sports cannot be put on hold. In the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan—my colleague—has moved to scrap flawed, ideologically-driven guidance that ignores the legal opinion and pushes something completely out of order and wrong. The majority of people are convinced of that. We are ensuring that schools remain places of common sense, where toilets and sports are defined by biological sex. We will not allow a culture where teachers or pupils are forced to speak untruths or where biological males are permitted into female-only spaces.

It is deeply disappointing to see some, including the Equality Commission, trying to use the Windsor framework or complex legal roadblocks to delay the inevitable. Let us be clear: there is no Northern Ireland exception to biological reality. To suggest that a woman in Belfast is defined differently from a woman in Glasgow or London is not only absurd; it is legally incoherent. I remind everyone of the Glasgow legal opinion, which was very clear. If we are all adhering to the law of the land—I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would not want to support the law of the land—then we can all agree on that.

We are not interested in expensive court cases that seek to overcomplicate the obvious, as some would perhaps try to do. We are interested in protecting the hard-won rights of women and girls. We are interested in ensuring that, when a service is advertised as single sex, it means exactly that and nothing else, as the legal decision in Scotland indicated. We have the legislation in place. We need adherence now, and we look to the Minister to demand this of every publicly funded body. This is about dignity, privacy and, above all, the truth. The DUP, my party, will continue to lead from the front, ensuring that our laws and services reflect the common-sense values of the people we represent. The Government must follow suit as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women.

As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community.

Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights.

The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make.

This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this.

It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Member is talking about the way care is managed within the NHS. Has he thought about the importance of ensuring that the biological sex of trans women and trans men is known by the clinician who is treating them? If they are on a ward, there will be a presumption that they are the same sex as the other people on the ward, which could leave them in a difficult position medically. If they receive a blood test result, perhaps for haemoglobin, the results will be interpreted based on the sex that the clinician understands the person to be, which could lead to an error if that is not the patient’s actual sex. When a patient is invited for screening, they need to be invited for the right type of screening and not the wrong type of screening, for their own safety. When statistics are produced that help with epidemiology and further healthcare, they also need to be done in an accurate way.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the hon. Member for her expertise in this area. Recognising biological sex is in the interests of trans people as well. We are not just different on the outside; we are different on the inside. Hospitals need to be able to treat people for who they are, not who they believe they are or who they want to be. We could end up with mistreatment, misdiagnoses and further litigation against the NHS for causing harm to somebody because we did not explicitly take into account their biological sex.

The law already allows flexibility to accommodate the implementation of human rights for all. It permits the provision of single-sex services where justified, while also enabling appropriate alternative arrangements, such as unisex facilities, where these are needed to ensure that everyone is treated with respect. However, the clarity in principle that the ruling provides must now be matched by clarity in practice.

We are now seeing movement from organisations. The International Olympic Committee recently announced that it will not allow non-biological women to compete in women’s sport. Girlguiding has now updated its guidance to go back to admitting guides based on biological sex. That is not discrimination against trans people; it is just common sense, and the protection and implementation of existing rights for girls and women.

In that spirit, I ask the Minister three specific questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that public bodies and service providers are not delaying implementation of the judgment under the mistaken belief that they must wait for further guidance before acting? The Supreme Court ruling was black and white, and gave all employers, the public sector and sporting bodies enough information to proceed with implementing it.

Secondly, how do the Government intend to support service providers in striking the balance between single-sex and unisex services in practice, particularly in frontline settings such as healthcare, education and local authority services, where the consequences of uncertainty are often felt most acutely? Finally, can the Minister set out how the Government intend to communicate clearly with the public about what the judgment means in practice, so that both women and trans people understand their rights and protections under the law?

As legislators, we have a special responsibility to ensure that the law remains coherent and relevant to the world we live in. One year on, I hope that the message is clear. The law has been clarified. The rights of women to access single-sex services are justified and recognised. The protections afforded to trans people remain in place, and the responsibility now lies with all of us—whether that be the Government, public bodies, parliamentarians, employers, sporting bodies or any other group—to ensure that this clarity is translated into consistent, lawful practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

That is exactly why we need the Government to come forward with proper guidance—so that organisations can work through this properly and understand when they are working within the rules, and so that they do not have to reinvent everything for themselves. We do not have that guidance, and it is desperately needed.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Could the hon. Lady say what her ideal situation would be? Would it be that if a gentleman walked into the ladies’ changing rooms, perhaps at a swimming pool, it would be illegal to stop them or even ask them? Would the solution be that any man could go into any women’s changing room if he wished?

[Marie Goldman]

I struggle with the idea that a trans person would go into the opposite sex’s changing rooms, which they are supposedly not allowed into, for the purpose of causing harm. That is surely what we are worrying about: harm being caused, particularly to women. I struggle with the idea that, at the moment, it is the sign on the door that is preventing someone from causing harm to women. Do they go, “Oh, I wanted to harm a woman, but I’m not going to do it because the sign on the door says I shouldn’t”? I struggle with that argument in general.

It should not need to be spelled out in Britain in 2026, but requiring women and girls to prove that we are female enough—because we have to do the same thing—is not only a deeply regressive step and an impractical requirement to put on businesses and other organisations, but deeply discriminatory, judgmental and, speaking as a woman, outrageous and unworkable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I can confirm that all Government Departments are currently ensuring they comply with the law.

The third question that the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me was on the NHS. Issuing guidance before the EHRC code of practice is published presents a very real risk that guidance may be inconsistent; I am happy to keep her up to date with progress on that matter.

The right hon. Member for East Surrey and others welcomed visitors in the Public Gallery today. I welcome them too, and want to say clearly that everybody should be safe and respected at work. That includes women’s voices, rights and spaces being respected. I think the right hon. Lady was wrong to say that that has not been a priority for the Government—we have been working tirelessly on giving it the due care and attention it needs—and I think she is wrong to say that we are not determined to uphold the law, as I have hopefully just clarified.

I will also clarify that this Government are committed to the rights of women. The last Conservative Government had a terrible record from on women’s rights: victims of rape and sexual assault waiting for years for justice, women waiting years for diagnosis and care in the NHS, women at work suffering stubbornly high gender pay gaps and the Leader of the Opposition even saying that maternity pay had gone too far. This Government are delivering for women and girls. We are halving violence against women and girls in a decade, strengthening women’s rights at work and delivering a new women’s health strategy and cutting waiting lists. We are committed to protecting single-sex spaces and implementing the Supreme Court ruling, which I will come on to discuss.

Debates such as this are important because, in a conversation that is so often deeply polarised we must find ways to work together to move forward. We need more cool heads and constructive contributions, so that we can ensure the vulnerable groups at the heart of this debate—for example, women who have experienced violence and the trans community—are always treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Today my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has tabled a written ministerial statement on progress with assessing the EHRC’s code of practice for services, public functions and associations. That follows the statement issued by the EHRC in which it explained that it has updated the code of practice and shared that with the Government this week. While we are unable to make further comment at this time due to strict pre-election rules, hon. Members should please be assured that we will take urgent action, with the intention of laying the code in May, as soon as practicable after the election period.

I also want to emphasise the importance of getting this code of practice right. It would be catastrophic for single-sex services to follow guidance that was not robust and then be placed in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we have taken the time needed to consider the code in full. When we lay the code, we will follow the process as set out in the Equality Act: namely, if the code is approved by the Minister, it will be laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Minister will then bring the code into force via a commencement order.

Beyond the process of the code itself, I have heard in today’s debate that some Members are concerned about what the Government have been doing to implement the Supreme Court ruling while the code is being considered. I reassure Members that since the judgment was received, the Government have been crystal clear that we expect duty bearers to follow the clarity provided by the judgment and to seek specialist legal advice where necessary.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and, indeed, for his lobbying. Labour’s technical excellence colleges will be crucial to our plans to rewire our school system to unlock opportunity for young people and drive growth for our country. My hon. Friend is right: West Suffolk College is an outstanding provider, and I am sure that its remarkable achievements will be considered during the selection of our technical excellence colleges.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Degree apprenticeships are great for social mobility and for matching skills to the economy, and I am such a fan of them that I created one in my parliamentary office. Would the Secretary of State like to take the time for congratulate Jack Kellas, who has achieved not just a distinction in his apprenticeship but a first-class honours degree from the University of Lincoln, and will she do all that she can to ensure that more people have opportunities to take part in degree apprenticeships and achieve the same success as Jack?

Free School Meals

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

My hon. Friend has been a real champion on school food issues ever since she was elected to this place. I had the pleasure of meeting her recently, along with campaigners she suggested I meet on these very points, so I know that her lobbying has directly influenced our outcomes today. We are making this announcement because of tough and necessary decisions that the Chancellor has had to make. It is a step in the right direction, and we will set out more detail on the child poverty strategy in due course.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I am delighted that more children will have school meals at lunch time. It is great for pupils to be well fed—as a paediatrician, I see the value of that. However, I want to ask about transitional protection and money. The transitional protection will take 1.2 million children out of this category; some may go back into it with UC. However, the robbing of the money from pupil premiums will leave schools £1.5 billion short. How does the Minister intend to replace that £1.5 billion for schools so that children can get a good education as well as school meals?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question—I think I have finally heard from someone who is actually delighted by today’s announcement. On transitional protections, it is worth saying that the Department will expand free school meal eligibility from September 2026 so that all children in households in receipt of universal credit can benefit from a free nutritious lunch. As a temporary measure, we will extend transitional protections, meaning that households that are on universal credit and meet the current earned income threshold of £7,400 will keep their free school meals, regardless of any change in circumstances. Following an expansion of eligibility from September next year, our intention is to end all protections.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I welcome the constructive nature of my hon. Friend’s question, because regardless of any announcement this afternoon, we know that schools are working hard to deliver for children. As a Government, we need to work our hardest—and we are—to support them to do so. That means a whole range of productivity measures to support teachers with their workload, to support schools with their costs, and to ensure we grab the opportunity of technological developments so that any teacher’s time is maximised with children in the classroom, helping them with their learning and being supported with technology to maximise children’s outcomes. We will continue to work; we are very much looking forward, and unfortunately those on the Opposition Benches seem constantly to be looking back.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

For the Government to come here today, fulling knowing their pay rise intentions but refusing to say so until this afternoon to avoid scrutiny, is disrespectful to this House, to every Member, to every constituent and to every teacher. If I may say so, it is somewhat cowardly. Schools across my constituency find themselves short of money to cover national insurance bills. Five schools in my constituency that have approached me are £176,000 short between them. Does the Minister know how many schools are short of money to pay their national insurance bills?

[Catherine McKinnell]

On the hon. Lady’s initial comments, let me say that there are processes and procedures in this House that we respect. We respect this House, and we will continue to do so. There is a process by which this statement and these announcements will be made. She will have to wait, alongside everybody, for the process that we adhere to in this House to be administered.

In response to the hon. Lady’s second question, as she should know, our funding system is not designed so that every school and college receives funding that necessarily fully matches their precise spending, as that—including NIC costs—varies from institution to institution because of the decisions that each school makes on staffing. We are providing schools and high-need settings with more than £930 million in 2025-26 to support them with their increased national insurance costs. That is in addition to the £2.3 billion increase to core schools funding announced at the autumn Budget in 2024. That means that the core schools budget, which includes the core revenue funding for schools and high-need settings, will total more than £64.8 billion in 2025-26. We will continue to support schools to spend that money in the most effective and productive way possible to maximise outcomes for children, which are our priority.

Mental Health Support: Educational Settings

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this important debate in the Chamber. I should also declare an interest: I am a consultant paediatrician and have worked throughout my career with children usually at the point of severe crisis when they have been admitted through A&E to hospital following episodes of deliberate self-harm, such as cutting themselves or taking overdoses, and I have clearly seen the heartbreak for families as they have struggled to understand what they can do to best help their young person get better.

Over recent years there has been a decline in the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people and an increasing demand for mental health services. This is perhaps one of the big challenges of our era. Currently around one fifth of children aged eight to 16 are said to have a probable mental health disorder, up from 12.5% in 2017. This figure is even higher, at 22%, for people aged 17 to 24. The consequences of mental health issues for students range from poor academic performance and dropping out of university or college to self-harm and suicide, and we must do all we can to help.

I want briefly to talk about university students because university is supposed to be one of the most enjoyable and formative periods of a person’s life, but for many it is also when they leave home for the first time and when they are separated for the first time from their family and friends and their support networks. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that during the covid-19 pandemic students reported higher levels of anxiety and lower levels of happiness than the general population. The number of students saying they have a mental health condition has increased sevenfold in the last decade. Even before the pandemic students consistently reported worse mental health than the rest of the adult population, but these trends were greatly exacerbated by the impact of lockdown. Will the Minister update the House on what steps he is taking to support young people with mental health problems as they go to university or who develop mental health problems at university?

Despite the unprecedented challenges the previous Government faced, not least the pandemic, we made important strides in improving mental health services, in increasing the recognition and discussion of mental health problems, in increasing investment and in reducing stigma. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, spending on mental health services increased by £4.7 billion which gave an additional 345,000 young people access to the mental health support they needed, and the number of mental health nurses increased by 30% since 2010, yet still we see that demand is outstripping supply.

Prevention is better than cure and we need to understand why we have such high levels of mental health problems in children. Can the Minister update the House on how the Government are working to identify risk factors for poor mental health and how they will support children and families to prevent it?

The last Government tried to detect mental health problems early and stop them escalating, expanding mental health support teams in schools, committing almost £8 million of funding for 24 early support hubs in ’24/25. These offered earlier open access mental health intervention without the need for a referral by a doctor or school. The drop-in centres offer vital advice to young people going through the trauma of stress and anxiety, giving them a space to go to when their problems first emerge. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing in terms of expanding the availability of these centres?

The Online Safety Act 2023 made very good progress in protecting children from harmful online content but there is much more to do on the topic of screen time, as has been mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon. Does the Minister agree that the mounting evidence we are hearing especially from health professionals about the impact of smartphones in particular on children’s mental health is very concerning? If so, will he support the Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban smartphone use in schools?

However, there have been some concerns that in the desire to support and enable individuals to have positive mental wellbeing, there is a danger that the pendulum has swung a little far and the boundaries between distress and disorder have become blurred. That means that there is a risk that those who are most unwell may miss out on the treatment they deserve and need because of the volume of referrals, as well as a risk of burdening others with unhelpful labels and prescriptions that could hold them back, without addressing the root cause of their very real need.

Some 84% of GPs are now said to believe that society’s approach to mental health has led to medicalising the normal ups and downs of life. The terms “wellbeing”, “mental health” and “mental illness” are often used interchangeably, so what steps is the Minister taking to distinguish between those terms in educational contexts, and to deliver public services to ensure that we can get the best outcomes for those affected, so people get the treatment they clinically require?

I pay tribute to the work that many charities do to support our young people with mental health problems. Will the Minister talk to the Chancellor about funding for those services? Dr Sarah Hughes, the chief executive of Mind, said that

“the implications of the NIC rise is eye-watering, at a time when we are trying to direct every penny towards delivering the best support.”

Such charities do immense work to create a mentally healthy society, putting everything they have into it, and the Government should recognise that huge investment, not destabilise it by introducing mounting costs that charities simply cannot subsidise.

It is important to recognise the connection between physical and mental health, and that those with long-term physical conditions are considerably more likely to have poor mental health. What are the Government doing to support children who have chronic illness to help improve their mental health?

In 2023, the now Education Secretary said that Labour wanted a trained mental health counsellor available in every secondary school. What steps have the Government taken towards achieving that aim? More specifically, why have they focused on secondary schools? In April 2024, Dr Patrick Roach, the general secretary of NASUWT, said:

"We also need to see improved support for pupils in primary schools to secure wraparound care for pupils at all stages of their education.”

What are the Government doing to support children in primary schools with their mental health?

Ahead of the last general election, the Labour party promised to establish Young Futures hubs, recruit 8,500 mental health staff and provide mental health support in schools. Why has so little progress been made on delivering those promises? When the Minister stood on a manifesto to establish the Young Futures hubs, which were said to have a cost of £95 million, and to provide mental health support in all schools, at a cost of £175 million, the Government said that they would fund that through revenue raised from applying VAT and business rates to private schools. Will the Minister confirm whether the revenue obtained from applying the VAT to private schools looks like it will be sufficient to expand the mental health support as described? If not, how do the Government intend to fund the measures they said they would implement?

In a speech to the Confederation of School Trusts on 7 November last year, the Education Secretary claimed that the Government would give

“every single child the very best life chances”

in

“a new era of child-centred government.”

How does she justify the impact on the wellbeing of those children who are forced to move schools due to the imposition of VAT on the private sector? Numerous think-tanks and mental health charities have noted that being forced to move school at a non-standard time can have a significant and long-lasting impact on children’s friendships, support networks and emotional development. What support is the Minister offering to those children?

Mental health issues among our young people are one of the defining issues of our time. As with so many other policy areas, the Government have promised a panacea, but so far they have delivered a sticking plaster.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister.

School Accountability and Intervention

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend. I know she is committed to securing better outcomes for the schools and children in her area. We are making these reforms so that we can go further to make improvement better and faster. We want to add to the tools in our box to help schools improve. We are not taking anything away; we are only adding to the ability to ensure we get the change within our school system that far too many children desperately need.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

How many structural interventions does the Minister expect schools to get each year—not RISE interventions but structural interventions?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We expect the range of structural interventions to continue as currently, at least for the next 12 months, because we will continue to intervene where schools are causing concern and to mandate structural change. We will also continue to mandate it where significant improvements are required in schools. We will, however, see a doubling of the number of schools that need significant improvement through the RISE system; so we are not reducing the number of interventions that the previous Government undertook, but doubling the number of schools being helped and supported to improve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

We are trying to deliver a system that is fair not just to students, but to taxpayers, too. That is why we are taking action to support students with the cost of living in England, including freezing tuition fees. We have increased loans by 2.8%, and we have made sure that if someone’s family income falls by 15%, they can have their loans reassessed. It is also important that we support people from lower income households, which is why we have made a further £10 million available, including for hardship funding, in 2023-24. This system is fair not just to students, but to taxpayers more widely.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Sir Robert Pattinson Academy in my constituency is a great school providing an excellent education to children. However, it is struggling with the challenges of aged infrastructure, and an urgent bid for it to rectify the heating and wiring challenges has been refused. An urgent meeting on Friday with officials was unproductive, not least because the data they were looking at was out of date. Can I ask the Secretary of State to please ensure that the senior leadership team gets an urgent meeting with senior officials and that she personally ensures that this bid is looked at properly and quickly?

[Damian Hinds]

I will indeed do that. My hon. Friend has brought up this subject with me and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There was that meeting with Mr Hardy on Friday. I know there are two separate cases around the condition improvement fund bid and the urgent capital support bid. We will continue to work with the school, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets that high-level meeting that she asks for.

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Education Settings

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I will take the hon. Lady’s advice and look in the mirror later. It is the responsible body’s job. If it has already gone ahead—as per the warnings we issued in 2018; we told everybody what they needed to do—I am delighted that it got on and did that work.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the hotline that she set up. I am pleased to say that it has informed my office that no RAAC has been found in my constituency, but I welcome the work she has done to keep children safe where it has been found. The Sir William Robertson Academy in my constituency does not have RAAC, but it does have other structural issues and is in the school rebuilding programme. The Chancellor has said that the money required to repair the concrete will be available. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is new money, and that the rebuild of Sir William Robertson Academy will still go ahead?

Safety of School Buildings

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the impact we can all see in our communities when we bring together services to support children and families. We, all of us, know the difference the last Labour Government made around the Sure Start programme in making sure all our children got the best possible start in life, and the evidence around that is even clearer now than it was then.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I think it was last week that the figures came out on children’s reading and it was discovered, on international assessment, that our young children are the best readers in the western world. Does the hon. Lady welcome that news?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I looked very carefully at all the data that was published, and I pay tribute to our amazing teachers and school support staff who have been involved in making sure that our children get the best possible start in life. I will always be led by the evidence on what is right for children and what is best for their futures. The one area that, I have to say, did slightly trouble me was that, sadly, we see too few of our children enjoying reading. I think all of us want to ensure that as well as getting that really strong foundation, all our children leave school with a love of reading too. There is much there we can welcome and much to praise when it comes to the amazing staff in our schools, but I do not think any of us can be complacent, coming out of the pandemic, about the scale of the challenge that so many of our children and young people are facing.

There is a real lack of ambition for our schools. While the crumbling structures of too many of our schools are all too real, they double as a metaphor for wider problems. Our schools face a recruitment and retention crisis, as teachers and school staff leave the profession in their droves. At the same time, initial teacher training—the pipeline for newly qualified teachers into the classroom—fails to meet recruitment targets in key subjects year after year. It would be laughable were it not so tragic that the Prime Minister believes that ever more children can be taught maths for longer, with even fewer maths teachers. Perhaps the Minister can answer a question on that: if the Government are responsible for the education system, one in 10 maths lessons is already taught by teachers with no relevant post-18 qualification, they want every young person to learn maths until they are 18 and they have no plan to attract more maths teachers, how many more of our young people will end up being taught maths by non-specialist teachers?

It is not just maths. Too many young people face a narrow curriculum, missing out on creative and enriching opportunities. Too many leave school neither ready for work nor ready for life, but why? Because the wider school system is not delivering for our children. We have an accountability system that simply is not delivering the high and rising standards our children need. It is a system that tells us that almost four in five of our schools are good or outstanding according to Ofsted, in a country where tens of thousands of our children do not get the qualifications they need to succeed.

Either the Government have the wrong idea of what good looks like, or the system they have built is not working to deliver it. Some of our children get good schools, great teachers, rewarding opportunities, the opportunity to achieve, the chance to thrive and the knowledge that success is for them, but too many of our children do not get that start. Labour is determined to change that. Excellence must be for everyone—every child in every school, in every corner of our country.

Although the strengths and weaknesses of our schools are at least public, sadly, the state of their buildings is not. The strengths and weaknesses of so much of what goes on in our schools tend to be clear to parents. They can see when teachers keep leaving. They know when their children no longer get to go on trips to museums and when they are asked to pay for stationery or books. They can see that there are almost no music lessons. They know that their kids do not get the same chances for drama as others. But the fabric of the buildings is something that they generally do not see, because the Government are determined to shroud it in darkness. That cannot be right.

It is 13 years since the Government, led by the Conservative party, cancelled the ambitious programme of the last Labour Government to deliver modern, first-class schools for all our children. In those 13 years, not once has capital spending for the Department of Education matched in real terms the level that it was when the Government entered office. But the test is not the money that the Government put in but the state of the buildings in which our children learn. That tells its own story of how unwilling the Government have become to come clean on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

I ask the hon. Member to hold off, because I am trying to create a sense of anticipation for the answer to this debate. We will come to the point that she has made on CDC1 later in my speech. May I also mention that her local authority received almost £1.2 million in school condition allocation for 2023-24 to address these very issues in her local authority area?

It is not just the school community that benefits from this capital spending. Construction projects support jobs and create apprenticeships and T-level placements. The Department is using its experience with innovative methods of construction to support more highly skilled jobs and improve productivity. Our procurement frameworks provide opportunities across the industry and enable small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit from the opportunities that a long pipeline of projects brings.

Furthermore, the earlier priority school building programme has handed over new buildings at more than 500 schools, as part of its commitment to delivering 532 projects overall. We are now building schools more quickly, more efficiently and better targeted on need than ever before. Since 2010, we have reformed our capital programme to bring down the cost of school building. The James Review of Education Capital in 2011 had found that the Building Schools for the Future programme was overly bureaucratic and did not deliver cost-efficient buildings of consistent quality.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I welcome the money announced yesterday for St George’s Academy and for North Kesteven Academy in my constituency, which will be very welcome. I was also very excited last Thursday to go to the Sir William Robertson Academy, also in my constituency, which has been part of the school rebuilding programme. It is very excited about the project, but there are some technical issues that need to be addressed, and I wonder whether he will meet me to discuss them.

[Nick Gibb]

I will be delighted to discuss those technical issues with my hon. Friend. It is interesting because, again, she cites more successful bids under the various capital funds that we are allocating to make sure that schools are properly repaired, but she had the good grace to thank the taxpayer for that funding for her schools.