Child Poverty Strategy
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s child poverty strategy.
Tackling child poverty is a proud Labour tradition. It goes to the heart of the values we have and the beliefs we share—above all, that background must be no barrier to success, that opportunity is for every child and that the freedoms that for too long few of our children enjoyed must today be extended to them all. This Government see child poverty not simply as the absence of material goods from the lives of our young people, but as the absence of their agency—their freedom—in the decisions that shape their world.
As Labour Members know well, it is not merely wealth and opportunity, but power that must be in the hands of the many, not the few. That clear political principle lay behind not merely the determination, but the success of the last Labour Government in lifting 600,000 children out of poverty between 1997 and 2010. However, after Gordon Brown left office, that progress was reversed by a combination of deliberate cuts to public services, economic stagnation and a deep cost of living crisis.
There are now 4.5 million children in poverty—900,000 more than in 2010. This means that, in a typical classroom of 30 children, about 10 are experiencing poverty. Two million children are in deep material poverty, lacking even the basic essentials, such as a warm home and healthy food, which no child should grow up without. We know that growing up in poverty has enormous consequences for children’s health, their education and, more broadly, their life chances. It is equally damaging for our country—not merely for our public services, social cohesion and the chances of economic growth, but for the sort of society we wish to build and the sort of future we can promise our people.
That is why we made a manifesto commitment to develop an ambitious child poverty strategy. Shortly after the election, the Prime Minister announced a child poverty taskforce to deliver this, which I have been proud to co-chair. This has been a cross-Government taskforce, recognising that the causes of child poverty are wide-ranging and deep-rooted. The taskforce has visited towns and cities across the UK; talked to over 180 stakeholders, including charities, academics and think-tanks; and, most importantly, listened directly to the experiences of children and families living in poverty, putting them at the heart of our work.
I am proud that the reduction in the number of children living in poverty because of this strategy will be the biggest ever reduction in child poverty recorded by any Government in a single Parliament. Our strategy sets out the action that we are taking and will take to help families by boosting incomes, saving money on essentials and strengthening local support.
This will build on the urgent action we have already taken since entering Government to tackle both the root causes and the symptoms of child poverty, including the best start for every child through our Best Start family hubs that will deliver the early intervention and support that new parents need to set up their children for future success in life, along with our extension of the holiday activities and food programme. Our expansion of free school meals, announced in July, will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament, reaching half a million families who receive universal credit. Our new crisis and resilience fund, worth £842 million a year, will reform crisis support by enabling local authorities to provide immediate support to those on low incomes who encounter a financial shock. Those commitments come on top of the wider change our Government are bringing to the lives of families in this country, which includes expanding free breakfast clubs, boosting the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes, and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families through our new fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions.
But we had to go further. On the Labour Benches, we believe that the social security system should be at once a springboard for opportunity and a safety net when times are tough. Any of us can fall on hard times. Any of us can become unwell, fall out of work or lose a loved one. The security for working people of knowing that when things go wrong, the state will be there for you and your family is one of the greatest achievements of the labour movement, not just here in Britain but around the world. That belief, which motivates that struggle against insecurity, applies above all to our children. Our system of support for families should never penalise children for the actions—not even necessarily the choices—of their parents. The third child in a family has just the same value and worth as the second and the first. What we believe is the right support for the first in the family is right for her sisters and her brothers, unto this last. None of us, none of our children, should lose out simply for the number of our siblings.
Failing to act on child poverty will cost Britain far more than investing now. Every pound we spend lifting children out of poverty saves much more in future health, education and welfare costs—and builds a stronger economy. We cannot afford to sit on our hands and pick up the greater costs of failure further down the line. Poorer children are more likely to have serious mental health difficulties. They are more likely to have poorer employment outcomes and to earn less. By age five, children eligible for free school meals are already five months behind. By age 16, that gap has widened to over 19 months.
No one has felt those consequences more than the children themselves. That is why we announced that we will remove the two-child limit in universal credit from April 2026. Reinstating support for every child will alone lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament and end the cruel policy that is currently affecting 1.6 million children. It is estimated that in 2029-30, there will be 550,000 fewer children in relative poverty as a result of the whole set of measures set out in our child poverty strategy.
With the decisive action the Government are taking today, we are investing in the future of our children and investing in the future of our country. It is sometimes put to Ministers, not least by Members on the Opposition Benches, that removing the two-child limit rewards parents for staying out of work. We reject that, because the evidence rejects that. Almost 60% of households affected by the two-child limit are in work. Almost 50% of the households affected were not claiming universal credit when any of their children were born. Parents are doing what they can to keep a roof over their children’s heads. Parental employment rates are already high. But with almost three quarters of children in poverty being in a working family, too many parents find themselves in jobs where they still struggle to support their families, while those not in work face extra barriers to entering the labour market at all.
One of the biggest barriers is childcare. That is why we have expanded the 30 hours of funded childcare for working parents, saving eligible families using all 30 hours up to £7,500 per eligible child per year; why we are extending eligibility for universal credit up-front childcare costs to parents returning from parental leave to ease the difficult transition back to work; and why we are providing universal credit childcare support to help with the childcare costs for all children, instead of limiting this to two children, to help parents who have larger families, too. We know that there is much more to do, which is why we are committing to a Department for Education-led, cross-Government review of access to early education and childcare support to deliver a simpler system that is better for children and parents alike.
Too many children are spending years in temporary accommodation at a point in their lives when they need space to play and develop, nutritious food to thrive and access to education. We are putting in place specific interventions to mitigate the harm living in temporary accommodation can inflict on children’s health, development and educational outcomes, which includes a commitment to ending the practice of discharging newborn babies into B&Bs or other unsuitable shared accommodation. Together, all this represents a strong start, but we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge to build a society where every child grows up in a family filled with love and is safe, warm and well fed—not held back by poverty, but helped forward by Government.
We will monitor our progress using two main metrics. First, we will use the internationally recognised and well-established relative low income after housing costs metric to monitor overall child poverty. Secondly, we have developed a new measure of deep material poverty to assess families’ abilities to afford everyday essentials, taking account of more than just income by including the cost of essentials, a family’s overall financial situation and the support they receive locally. It is not only the number of children in poverty that matters, but the depth of that poverty. We will continue to have a dedicated team in Government that works with the wider public, private sector and civil society to keep focus on tackling the stain of child poverty with oversight from Ministers across Government.
For over a century, Labour Governments have worked to deliver opportunity and security. This strategy will build on those proud foundations, delivering on our opportunity mission to break the link between background and success. We will continue to work nationally, locally and across all four nations of the UK and we will continue to be ambitious—to match the ambition of our children—to build a Britain where no child goes hungry, every child has opportunities and every family has power and choices in life. I commend this statement to the House.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I will start with something we can all agree on: none of us wants to see children grow up in poverty. We all know something of what that looks like: some hon. Members have lived it themselves; for others, it is part of the bread and butter of constituency work. Even in the wealthiest constituencies there are pockets of poverty, where children spend months living in bed and breakfasts, their meals coming from the local food bank, not knowing when they will have a bed in a room they can call their own and worrying about their mum—and it is usually their mum—and how she will pay the bills. None of that helps kids to succeed in life. Of course this Government should be working on how to improve the lives of children, as we did before them, but nothing I have heard from the Secretary of State today—however well intentioned—gives me any confidence that they are going to fix the problem.
Last week, the Prime Minister grabbed the headlines by saying that the Government will change how supermarkets display baby formula and give customers loyalty points—hardly the groundbreaking fix for child poverty that we have been promised. At the Budget, the Government crowed about how they will lift so many children out of relative poverty by lifting the two-child cap, and that will, of course, help with the stats on that one metric, just like the free taxpayer-funded breakfasts. However, ditching the two-child benefit cap will raise taxes on working people, including those on the poverty line, and disincentivise work.
For a measure that the Prime Minister now speaks about with such pride, I am surprised that it took the Government 18 months to bring it in. In that time, the Prime Minister and Chancellor rejected many demands from their Back Benchers to lift the cap, arguing that the policy was unaffordable; in fact, the Prime Minister was so committed to the cap that he removed the Whip from the brave Labour rebels who voted to lift it. But then, as rivals for the Labour leadership circled, the cap indeed went. Chopping and changing policy based on political pressure is no way to govern, and it is certainly no way to solve child poverty.
There is a way to boost the prospects of the country’s children. It is through plentiful, well-paid jobs. That way people can provide for themselves and their families, pay their rent or mortgage, do their weekly food shop and afford school uniforms for their kids. The Centre for Social Justice found that children in workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived. Under this Government, the number of children growing up in workless households has seen the fastest increase on record, rising to 1.5 million children.
Contrast that to our record, which saw the number of children in workless households—[Laughter.] Labour Members can laugh, but honestly they should listen to what makes a difference to children’s lives. Contrast that to our record, which saw the number of children in workless households decrease year on year from 2014. With unemployment now going up month on month, the number of children in workless households is sadly likely to keep going up.
There is something even more fundamental that helps to stave off poverty. It is the family. Some 44% of children in lone-parent households live in poverty, compared with 25% of children who live in households with a couple. Strong, working families raise children who are less likely to be in poverty—it is as simple as that. Yet the Government’s poverty strategy ignores that fact entirely. Rather than tackling the root causes of poverty, the strategy concerns itself with vouchers for formula milk. How many children will be brought out of poverty thanks to those vouchers? Why is there nothing in the strategy on parenting skills, which we know are key determinants of child outcomes? Why do the Government insist on using the misleading metric of relative poverty instead of measures that reflect real living standards?
With Labour’s Budget slapping thousands of pounds of extra taxes on hard-working and hard-up families, how many families are going to be plunged into poverty because of their tax rises? How many more households will now be eligible for universal credit? If the Government truly believe that lifting the two-child benefit cap is essential to reducing poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it, and why did he remove the Whip from his own MPs who voted for it? Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us the real reason. Was it actually about the Prime Minister saving his own skin?
I know that the Government are well meaning, but this strategy is all wrong. Tackling poverty is about decent jobs, lower taxes and a stable foundation for every child. Throwing money at the problem to improve the statistics is not the answer, and they will certainly not lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer.
The policies in the strategy and the Budget risk trapping families in long-term dependency instead of lifting them out of it. This strategy is so far from the bold action that Labour is making it out to be and that this country needs to break the cycle of worklessness for families on benefits, give children the best start in life and give taxpayers a fair deal—fair to those who pay in, as well as those who get help. The fact is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State has taken even longer than the Secretary of State and is well over her time limit. I call the Secretary of State.
Bridget Phillipson
The shadow Secretary of State started by saying that none of us wants children to grow up in poverty. We, as the party in Government, will lift children out of poverty. The Conservatives pushed nearly a million children into poverty. That is the difference between our parties.
The Conservatives knew when they introduced the two-child limit that it was a political dividing line. They sought to create an artificial divide between families in work and families not in work, yet all the evidence shows us that the children and families who have suffered are working families. That is what the evidence shows, and that is why we have acted.
In suggesting, that they will bring back the two-child limit, as the Conservatives have done in the media over many days, the shadow Secretary of State is showing that she is committed to pushing 450,000 children back into poverty and reintroducing the repulsive and dehumanising rape clause that saw women forced to talk about sexual violence in order to have enough money to support their children. They should be deeply ashamed of such a punishing and dehumanising regime that saw women and children suffer.
We will never stand for it. We will not allow for children to be punished because of the circumstances of their birth. The Conservatives’ record is a shameful and abhorrent one. We will heal the scars that they inflicted on children across our country, and we will heal it once and for all.
We are also a party that believes in the power of education to spread opportunity. Speak to any teacher across the country and they will say that poverty limits our children’s learning and the life chances. In ending the two-child limit, we are investing in education, raising standards, and giving children a better start right across our country. That is not the limit of our ambition, because we know that there is much more to do, but we have so far achieved an enormous amount. We are acting to raise the minimum wage for the lowest earners and bringing back Sure Start for a new generation through our Best Start family hubs with more support for parents. We are opening new breakfast clubs and expanding Government-funded childcare, and we are introducing new school-based nurseries to give parents work choices and children life chances.
The cost to children can last a lifetime, but the cost to society can echo for generations—in worklessness, poorer health, and lost prosperity for our country. That is why this Labour Government will not stand by as working families struggle—not just for the sake of parents and children but for all of us. We promised to tackle child poverty, and we are doing it so that every child in our country has the best start in life. The price of doing nothing is too high for children, families and our country.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the publication of the child poverty strategy, which builds on the steps that the Government have already taken, including expanding access to free school meals and introducing free breakfast clubs. I particularly welcome the removal of the two-child benefit cap. All the evidence is clear that that has been one of the biggest contributors to the shameful increase in child poverty that we have seen in recent years. My Committee, along with the Work and Pensions Committee, will undertake detailed scrutiny of the strategy and play our part in ensuring that its implementation is as effective as it can be.
I welcome the focus on temporary accommodation. Where children sleep and the safety and security of their home environment have a huge impact on their life chances. However, I note that the measures in the strategy are limited to pilots. This work is badly needed across the country, so when does the Secretary of State expect to roll out the work to eliminate the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families everywhere, so that no child’s life needs to be scarred by the trauma of living in temporary accommodation?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that temporary accommodation is linked to worse outcomes for children and that there are deep consequences for those who are forced to endure living in B&Bs and other unsuitable accommodation. We are working with the 20 local authorities with the highest usage of B&Bs to bring those numbers down, and we are backing up this work with investment. That runs alongside the £39 billion investment we are putting into social and affordable housing. We also have our homelessness strategy coming forward in due course, which will set out the further steps that the Government will take. I look forward to discussing this further with my hon. Friend’s Committee next time I am before it.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Every child, no matter their background, deserves the opportunity to flourish and fulfil their potential. The Liberal Democrats welcome any and all efforts to reduce the number of children in poverty, because we believe that investing in our children and young people is one of the most important investments a Government can make. That is why we welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement at the Budget that the Government will lift the cap on universal credit for families with more than two children. It was a cruel policy put in place by George Osborne and the Conservatives when they were left to their own devices in government.
This strategy includes a smorgasbord of existing proposals, but it is very light on any new measures that we urgently need to tackle the scourge of child poverty. Even the Government’s own numbers suggest that the strategy will leave nearly 4 million children stuck in poverty. The Government need to go further. The Secretary of State could start by properly funding the very welcome expansion in free school meals and, crucially, automatically enrolling children on to the scheme, so that no child slips through the cracks and misses out on a hot, healthy meal. The Education Secretary could also set a cap on the cost of branded school uniform, so that hard-pressed parents do not have to suffer over-inflated prices as a result of her short-sighted policy to cap the number of branded uniform items.
We know that one of the biggest determinants of outcomes is housing. Like many other London MPs, I regularly see families in my surgery who are suffering the devastating consequences of being shoved into temporary accommodation many miles away from their schools and wider family. If the Government are serious about ending the use of B&B accommodation, they must focus on building social housing. We need to build 150,000 social homes every year in order that local people can genuinely afford to live in their area, with local services to meet their needs.
Finally, the Secretary of State rightly pointed out the long-term costs of material poverty. The same can be true of those children suffering a poverty of love and care. That is why her failure to reverse the cuts she imposed earlier this year to the adoption and special guardianship support fund by finding just £25 million—a drop in the ocean of Government spending—is so egregious and short-sighted. Why will she not think again, to ensure that our most vulnerable children can access the therapy they desperately need to have a best second chance in life?
Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we come to the statement, I should inform the House that the case concerned is still technically sub judice until sentencing. However, the Government have made the judgment that the House should have an opportunity to consider this matter, as it raises issues of national importance, and the accused has pleaded guilty. Mr Speaker has therefore granted a limited waiver so that Members may discuss the issues raised in the context of the case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues and should also be cautious about prejudicing any ongoing investigations.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement regarding the sickening case of child sexual abuse at a nursery in Camden. Before I go further, I want to remind the House that a live police investigation is still under way and that the perpetrator is awaiting sentencing.
All Members and people across our country will wish to join me in expressing our horror at hearing of these appalling crimes. A 45-year-old British man, Vincent Chan, has pleaded guilty to 26 offences, which include multiple counts of sexual assault on a child by penetration, assault of a child by touching, and taking and making indecent photographs of a child, including category A images depicting the most serious abuse. He was employed by a nursery setting in Camden between June 2017 and May 2024. On 8 September 2025, he was arrested after evidence was uncovered on devices seized in a previous police investigation and was charged with the 26 offences in question on 9 September. Yesterday, Vincent Chan entered a plea of guilty, and sentencing will take place on 23 January.
In the meantime, the Metropolitan police have met families of all the children they have identified as victims of contact offences. In addition, the Met has written to the other families whose children attended the setting in question while the individual worked there to reassure them that where there is evidence of offences, the affected families have been contacted. Local children’s social care services are providing emotional and practical support to families and signposting them to specialist support services.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has been commissioned to set up a bespoke helpline as the first point of contact for anyone affected by these horrific acts. Details of the helpline can be found in communications from Camden council and the Metropolitan police. Specialist support is available for victims from the NSPCC helpline. People affected can be supported directly or referred to the right source of support to meet their needs, and the Government have provided funding to ensure there is sufficient capacity to support families.
Following a notification of a serious incident, the police, the integrated care board and the local authority completed a rapid review to establish the facts. That meant setting out a clear timeline of the events leading up to the incidents, the incidents themselves, the roles played by different agencies, and the safety of children at the nursery at each stage. Those initial findings are now being worked through quickly, but I can confirm to the House that the rapid review has concluded that a full local child safeguarding practice review is warranted. That wider review is being set up immediately. I am clear that it must shine the strongest possible light on these horrifying incidents, and that we must learn every lesson we can to make sure that crimes like this are guarded against at every step and every stage. It is critical that local safeguarding partners can continue their investigations, but I will work closely with them, with the child safeguarding practice review panel and its chair Sir David Holmes, and with Home Office colleagues to make absolutely sure that we have the most robust safeguards possible in place.
We must do everything in our power to protect children. I take my responsibilities as Secretary of State for not simply Education, but children, with the utmost seriousness. However, preventing cases like these requires everyone to believe in, and act on, the fundamental principle that safeguarding is everyone’s business. It is the duty of all of us right across our society to report abuse if we see it, and if we see or hear something that feels wrong, to question and challenge it. All of us owe it to our children to do the right thing. Keeping children safe is one of the most important duties of any society, and I thank our early years staff and wider children’s services workforce—those who work so hard, day in and day out, to give the children of this country the best start in life. I know that all committed early years and children’s services professionals will be just as horrified as we all are to hear about what has taken place, and just as distressed to think that something like this could happen in a place that should have been dedicated to keeping children safe and helping them thrive.
The defendant has now pleaded guilty to these sickening crimes and will be sentenced, but my thoughts this afternoon are not on him; they are with all the child victims of these vile and abhorrent crimes and their families, who are now trying to recover from the suffering and pain he has caused. My promise to them through these darkest of days, and my promise to Members in the Chamber today and to families across the country, is that not only will justice be served, but we will strengthen the ways in which we keep children safe. We will root out abuse wherever it hides, and we will never stop working to rid our society of this evil. I commend this statement to the House.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her response. I know she shares my commitment and determination to make sure that our early years settings are safe for our children, as parents and children rightly expect them to be. She has raised important areas related to policy. I will answer her points as best I can; she will appreciate that there may be limitations on precisely what I can say, but she raises important questions that will need to be considered through the work of the local review.
The right hon. Lady has rightly asked about the time it took for images to be looked at. That question will be considered in the local review, and I will of course discuss the point about children with colleagues at the Home Office. She also asked about the use of CCTV and devices—again, she is right to do so. To be clear, we believe that it may not have been the case that CCTV was in operation at the nursery—that came to light subsequently—but we will make sure that the review considers that important question. On the wider point about the use of CCTV and devices in early years settings, some of these settings already use CCTV, as she noted. Sadly, we know that it can never entirely prevent the prospect of abuse, and there may well be differing views among parents, carers and those in the sector about CCTV use in those settings. However, I appreciate that the issue has been raised as a concern in a number of ways, so I intend to appoint an expert advisory group to develop guidance for the sector on the safe and effective use of CCTV and digital devices. This guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations, and I will provide updates as that work progresses.
The right hon. Lady asked other questions; they are the right questions, and the local review will consider them further. She will understand that I cannot expand on many of the facts, but I appreciate the care and sensitivity that she has shown in her approach to this issue. I know that today, the focus of everyone in this House will be on the families—those who are suffering because of these despicable acts. We across this House stand with them as they get the support they need and the justice they deserve, and we as a Government will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to keep children safe, root out abuse wherever it hides, and rid our society of this evil.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Education Select Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
Vincent Chan’s crimes are utterly horrific—the most egregious breach of trust imaginable, and every parent’s worst nightmare. My thoughts and, I know, the thoughts of the whole House have been with the children who are his victims, and with their families, ever since news of his crimes came into the public domain.
Incidents like this one, and the recent case of Roksana Lecka, who was convicted of abusing children at two nurseries, raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of Ofsted’s early years inspection regime, which currently rates 98% of providers as good or outstanding. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that Ofsted urgently brings forward reform of its early years inspection framework, so that it is fit for purpose? Will she review the current requirements for safeguarding training for early years practitioners, and the use of CCTV, to ensure that all staff are appropriately trained and the requirements are fit for purpose?
The Secretary of State’s colleagues in the Home Office have decided not to implement the version of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse recommended by Professor Alexis Jay in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report, citing the workload that it would create. Does the Secretary of State agree that workload should not be a consideration when it comes to the safety of children? Will she urge her colleagues in the Home Office to rethink that decision, and to implement the more robust mandatory reporting obligation set out by Professor Jay, which includes criminal sanctions for non-compliance?
Finally, the Secretary of State spoke about the support that is quite rightly being provided to the victims of Vincent Chan and their families. Can she say a bit more about how support will be made available to those children and their families in such a way that they can draw on it throughout their life, whenever they need it?
Bridget Phillipson
The Chair of the Select Committee raises questions relating to Ofsted, as the shadow Secretary of State did, and I will respond in some detail to those. It is important that we understand what has happened here, so that, as far as we can, we prevent this from ever happening again. It is critical that local safeguarding partners conclude their investigations. We will work with them and the child safeguarding practice review panel.
We will also work with Ofsted to review the regulation of nursery chains. Ofsted keeps all settings under review, and conducts visits where risk assessments deem them necessary. The horrific crimes that we are discussing today are an important reminder that we expect providers to be vigilant across all early years settings. It is important that settings and staff report and act on concerns quickly, as part of an open safeguarding culture. I set out to the House my intentions around CCTV and the use of digital devices, and I would, as always, appreciate the input of the Select Committee and the Chair as we take that work forward.
On the wider need for reform in child protection and children’s safeguarding matters, on 9 April the Government published a progress update to address the recommendations from IICSA, including the recommendation on establishing a child protection authority to provide stronger national oversight of child protection. We will shortly launch a consultation on how we take that forward, and I will continue to discuss all the related matters with colleagues in the Home Office.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and for the briefing that officials provided to me. The details of this case are harrowing and deeply disturbing, and my first thoughts are with the families affected. I sincerely hope that they are getting all the support and care they need.
Sadly, however, this latest heinous case is part of a distressing pattern that is emerging in early years settings across the country, in which safeguarding practices have not been followed or are proving insufficient to prevent babies and young children from coming to harm. Less than three months ago, Roksana Lecka was jailed for eight years on 21 counts of child cruelty relating to her time working at Riverside nursery, Twickenham Green, in my constituency. Just last year, another nursery worker was jailed for manslaughter following the tragic death of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle. The BBC’s “Panorama” has exposed a worrying level of abuse and neglect in nurseries across the country.
The Secretary of State rightly says that lessons will be learned from the Camden case, but it is clear that we already urgently need to strengthen safeguarding in early years settings. The safeguarding panel review in the Twickenham Green case and the parents of the children affected have clearly set out three broad areas for change. The first is transparency around who is working in our early years settings, what qualifications and what training they have, and their history and vetting. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to an early years practitioner register, of the kind that Australia has recently proposed?
The second area for change is monitoring. In the Twickenham Green and Gigi Meehan cases, CCTV was vital in securing convictions, and it might have led to Chan being caught sooner. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, but will she seriously consider mandating CCTV in nurseries, and making it a requirement for management to regularly review footage, and for Ofsted to routinely check footage at inspections? The third is accountability. The Vincent Chan and Twickenham Green cases involved nursery chains. Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when Ofsted will start corporate inspections of nursery chains, and will she ensure that when serious safeguarding issues are found in one setting, inspections are triggered across the chain?
No parent heading off to work should have to worry about whether their child is safe, but our most vulnerable are repeatedly being let down. The Secretary of State rightly said that keeping children safe is one of the most important duties in our society. Ministers urgently need to act to keep children safe, and we stand ready to work with them.
“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, I will now make a statement to update the House on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers.
This ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers. Single-sex spaces must be protected, and this is personal to me; before I was elected to this place, I ran a women’s refuge in the north-east for women and children fleeing domestic violence. I know how important to survivors it is, and always was, to have single-sex spaces based on biology —places of safety after trauma, time in a sanctuary that allowed them therapeutic support, healing from unimaginable male violence and fear. I remember how hard countless campaigners had to fight over many decades to get any single-sex provision at all, in order to create women’s refuges and rape crisis centres. Later, I remember how hard it was to convince commissioners that young homeless women trying to heal from terrifying acts of cruelty should not be left in mixed-sex accommodation. I will continue to fight for that provision to ensure that women’s safety, women’s privacy and women’s dignity are always protected.
This Government will continue as before, working to protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex— now with the added clarity of this ruling—and we will continue our wider work with commitment and compassion to protect all those who need it, right across society. This is a Government who will support the rights of women and trans people, now and always. This is a Government who will support the rights of all people with protected characteristics, now and always. This is a Government who will support the rights of our most vulnerable, now and always. On that, there is no change to announce: dignity and respect for all, now and always.
But this is a judgment long in the making. It began in 2018 when Scottish Ministers issued guidance on the definition of a woman in the eyes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. That guidance stated that a woman in that Act bears the same meaning as a woman in the Equality Act 2010, and included trans women with a gender recognition certificate. For Women Scotland challenged that guidance, saying that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, so that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is a man for the purposes of the Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and last week, the court ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. This means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, regardless of whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate.
I know that the women who brought this challenge have not always been treated with the respect they deserve. This Government believe in freedom of speech and in the fundamental right to protest, but in no way does that extend to criminal damage. There can be no excuse for defaced statues of feminist icons, no excuse for threats, and no excuse for harassment. Such acts seek to drag down the debate, away from common sense and the sensible view—held by the majority of the British public—that women need single-sex spaces, that those spaces should be protected, and that we can protect those spaces while treating trans people with respect as well. As such, the certainty that this judgment brings is welcome. Now, it is time to move forward.
There is now a need to ensure that this ruling is clear across a range of settings, from healthcare and prisons to sport and single-sex support groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Britain’s equality regulator, is working quickly to issue an updated statutory code of practice to reflect this judgment, and I look forward to reviewing that code of practice in due course.
Alongside these updates, our work to protect single-sex spaces across society continues in earnest, because for far too long, under the Conservative Government, single-sex spaces were anything but—and nowhere is that clearer than in our hospitals. Year after year, the Conservatives pledged to close mixed-sex wards; and yet year after year, their use not only persisted but grew massively. Year after year, often in their most vulnerable moments, women were denied the privacy and dignity they deserved. Time after time, Conservative Ministers, including the now Leader of the Opposition, came to this House and toured television studios telling the public that they were protecting single-sex spaces in our hospitals. The truth was very different, because as last year’s data tells us, the use of mixed-sex wards rose by more than 2,200% in 10 years under the last Tory Government. There is no better example of rhetoric divorced from reality and of a party playing politics with the safety of women, and we will never let them forget it. By contrast, this Government will protect women’s wards and NHS England will soon publish guidance on how trans patients should be accommodated in clinical settings. We will end the practice of mixed-sex wards once and for all.
It is not just in our NHS that we will act on behalf of women. In prisons, we will continue to protect women’s safety with single-sex accommodation. In women’s sport, I have always backed integrity and fairness. Biology matters for competitive sport, and sporting bodies have issued rules to reflect that. In our prisons, in our hospitals, in sport and in a whole host of other spaces, what was true before the ruling remains true after the ruling. This Government protect safe spaces for women under the Equality Act 2010.
For too many years, we have seen the heat dialled up in this debate by the Conservatives. There was no real action to protect women’s spaces, while under their watch the use of mixed-sex wards increased, an epidemic of violence against women and girls spread across the country and women’s health was neglected. This Labour Government will deliver for women through our plan for change, driving down waiting lists month after month, tackling misogyny throughout society, and once and for all delivering justice for survivors of violence against women and girls.
I know that many trans people will be worried in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, so I want to provide reassurance here and now that trans people will continue to be protected. We will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will work to equalise all existing strands of hate crime, and we will review adult gender identity services, so that all trans people get the high-quality care they deserve. The laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place, and trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment—a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act.
This Government will offer trans people the dignity that too often they were denied by the Conservatives. Too often, trans people were a convenient punchbag and the butt of jokes made in this place by the Conservatives, culminating rather shamefully in the previous Prime Minister standing at this Dispatch Box trying to score cheap laughs from his Back Benchers at the expense of vulnerable people. By contrast, this Government are clear that trans people deserve safety, opportunity and respect.
This verdict is about clarity and coherence in the eyes of the law, but the Supreme Court judges delivered along with that verdict a vital reminder: this is not about the triumph of one group at the expense of another. It is not about winners or losers, and it is not about us or them. That is the message I want to reinforce today in this House. Everyone in our society deserves dignity and respect. Those values are not and never will be a zero-sum battle. Dignity and respect for all—those are the values that lift us up and set us free. Those are the values that define and distinguish any modern and compassionate society. Those are the values that this Government will do everything to promote and protect, now and always. I commend this statement to the House.
Bridget Phillipson
I am delighted to see the right hon. Lady in her place today. Many would run from a record like hers on these matters, but not the right hon. Lady. She and the Conservative party had 14 years to provide clarity on the issues that they now claim to take an interest in. The Supreme Court has confirmed that Labour’s Equality Act 2010 is the basis for single-sex spaces and protection, but the Conservatives did not provide that clarity. Before I say a bit more about her record, I will say a little more about mine. I will come to the questions—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady has some patience, I will respond to her questions.
I have supported countless women and children fleeing appalling male violence, sexual violence and domestic abuse. I have campaigned for decades on women’s rights. I know more than most about the importance of spaces for women—I have fought for them, I have delivered them and I have run them. While I was running a refuge, and while Labour was delivering the groundbreaking Equality Act, which, as this ruling confirms, sets in law the basis for single-sex spaces, what was the Leader of the Opposition doing? Forever the keyboard warrior, she was busy hacking the website of the leading architect of the Equality Act, and she has learned nothing from her party’s crushing electoral defeat last year. She held the post of Minister for Women and Equalities for two years and did precisely nothing. She provided no clarity in the law and nothing to improve the lives of women, which got materially worse on her watch.
The right hon. Lady comes here claiming to speak for women, but let us look at her record and her party’s record. There has been an increase in stalking offences. Prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse have nearly halved since 2015. The rape charge rate is at a record low. Survivors of sexual violence are waiting years for justice. There has been a 2,000% increase in the use of mixed-sex wards in only 10 years. That is the Conservatives’ record.
The right hon. Lady asks about the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory code of practice. I have set out that I am expecting an updated version of that as soon as possible. I will work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to implement the code of practice, to make sure that everyone has the clarity that they require, and I expect the EHRC to work quickly and thoroughly on this matter.
The right hon. Lady asks about gender-questioning guidance and RSHE guidance. I am afraid that too is simply laughable. Mere months before the election was called, the Conservatives published a version of the draft guidance for gender-questioning children. Since that time, we have had the final review by Dr Hilary Cass published. It is right that we ensure that the guidance aligns with Dr Cass’s final review.
On the RSHE guidance, the consultation concluded after the election. We could not be clearer that we will always protect single-sex spaces, and we Labour Members are focused on delivering for women. Whereas the Leader of the Opposition has described maternity pay as “excessive” and called the minimum wage “harmful”, we are improving protections for pregnant women at work. We are ensuring that women can take maternity leave and come back to good, secure jobs. We are expanding childcare, the first 750 new free breakfast clubs opened today, and we have brought forward the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation to protect young women and girls.
It is Labour’s groundbreaking Equality Act that provides the basis for what we have set out today about single-sex spaces for biological women. This Labour Government have a plan for change; a plan that will deliver for women. It is time for the Conservative party to get offline and get on board.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Far from this ruling providing clarity, trans, intersex and non-binary people are instead anxious and unsure about where this ruling leaves them, legally and practically, as they go about their lives. Does the Minister recognise that this ruling was made without a single contribution from trans people? Will she ensure that trans, intersex and non-binary people are involved in any upcoming new guidance, and if so, how?
Bridget Phillipson
I believe that this ruling provides much-needed clarity. I do recognise the Chair of the Select Committee’s concern about ensuring that all people are treated with dignity and respect, including trans people. My expectation is that the EHRC, in the development of the code of practice and the guidance, will engage with a range of stakeholders with different views, and will then set out that work in full.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. Of course, I respect the independence of the Supreme Court and the ruling it has made, interpreting the law as it stands, just as I respect the concerns of many women, and the now increased fears of the LGBT community. I also respect what the Minister had to say about her experience of working in a refuge, and I agree that there is no length to which we should not go to ensure protection for women who are in the situation that she describes. However, given what she said, I am sure that she will agree with me that that should not come at the cost of the human rights and the security of another vulnerable group in society, which is what this ruling threatens to bring about. Could she explain where transgender people fleeing violence can now go for refuge, if they are to be completely excluded from refuges?
For years, we have had this intolerable debate, in which two vulnerable groups have been pitted against each other. Those two groups are afraid of the same thing—violence, mostly from men. The challenge for this Labour Government is to live up to the spirit of perhaps one of the proudest achievements of a previous Labour Government—the Equality Act—and protect everyone. If this Government are not able to do that, does the Minister think it would be acceptable to see trans women forced into men’s toilets, to face goodness knows what sort of aggression, and potentially violence, there? Will she confirm what she says about protecting trans rights? We need some leadership from this Government. I have written to the Minister and asked her if we will see legislation that gives that protection, because we must remember that what we are dealing with here is not hypothetical. It is about real lives, real fears and real concerns among the LGBT community. Equality and human rights should never be the preserve of one—
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As she says, she has written to me on this topic, and I or a member of the ministerial team would be happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Where we can agree is that dignity and respect should be for all in our country—for women and for trans people—and trans people should not face discrimination or harassment on the basis of who they are. However, I believe that ensuring a society that treats everyone with dignity and respect is entirely compatible with ensuring that single-sex spaces can continue to exist for biological women who require safety and dignity, particularly following periods of terrible abuse. It is important that services are available for trans people in addition, and it is often the case that those services are much better provided by those with the specialist knowledge and expertise to deliver them.
I agree that this should not be seen as a conflict. The ruling from the Supreme Court, while being clear about the importance of biological sex, was at pains to stress that trans people do retain clear protections in law, and should be able to live their life free of harassment and discrimination.
School-based Nursery Capital Grants
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the roll-out of nurseries in our primary schools.
This Labour Government are bringing the change that families deserve. We made promises to the parents and children of this country and, not nine months in, we are acting to deliver on them. Free breakfast clubs are already being rolled out, the curriculum and assessment review is in full swing, and children’s social care is seeing the biggest overhaul in a generation. We have funding for 10,000 new places for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, backing for up to 10,000 more apprentices to qualify, new improvement teams for our schools and a new allowance for our kinship carers—promises made, promises kept. Here, today, we go further.
This £37 million in funding for 300 primary schools to open and expand nurseries is a big step towards delivering 3,000 nurseries for schools, a big step towards delivering childcare for parents and a big step towards delivering the best start in life for all our children. I want that best start in life for every child, because I want opportunity for every child. I want every child in every village, town and city across our country to grow up knowing that success belongs to them. That is the kind of country I want to live in—the country that this Labour Government want to build, with opportunity not just for some, but for all our children.
To achieve that, we need to start early, before university or college, and even before school—in the earliest years of our children’s lives. Those years are fundamental to opportunity. That is where gaps in learning and development first appear, and the longer we wait, the wider they grow and the harder they are to close. That is why, when I am in schools, colleges and universities—even in those places—they agree that the biggest chance to make an impact on our children’s lives sits in those crucial early years. That is why this is my No. 1 priority.
If we get this right, and we set all children on the track to success, that is where they will stay. That is why, despite the huge fiscal challenges that we inherited from the Conservatives, we chose to invest more than £8 billion in the early years at the last Budget. It is why the early years are a central part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change, setting the target of a record share of children starting school ready to learn. That is why I am today announcing the 300 schools that will be delivering our first wave of new and expanded school-based nurseries. Many of these school-based nurseries will serve communities facing big challenges, where there is strong evidence of need. Overall, it means up to 6,000 more nursery places for young children where they will have the biggest impact, with most of them starting in September this year. That is vital, because that is when the final stage of the 30 hours a week childcare entitlement will kick in. When that is joined up with the offer for three and four-year-olds, working parents of children from nine months right up to the beginning of school will get 30 Government-funded hours of childcare a week.
The 300 schools are just the start. It is 300 on the road to 3,000 school-based nurseries. We will work with schools, voluntary and private providers, teachers and local partners to find and spread what works. By the end, it will mean that tens of thousands more parents have the power to choose the hours they want to work.
What a contrast with the Conservatives, because what we inherited was not just an offer that they had not bothered to fund, but a pledge without a plan, with places, promises and provision missing. Parents made decisions on the back of those promises. Again and again, I hear from parents how much they have been relying on the promises that the previous Government scattered about like confetti. Across our country, this Government are delivering change in months, when the last Government waited 13 years before signing a post-dated cheque.
The changes that we are making will give parents more control over their lives, time to choose their working hours and money back in their pockets. The last Coram report showed that the effects are starting to flow through. Childcare costs for under-threes in England have halved since the expansion, but ultimately childcare and early years education is about children. It is about launching a lifetime of learning and starting as we mean to go on, so as we roll out these school-based nurseries, we are also adding the biggest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium, closing the attainment gap and giving every child the support that they need to learn and grow, and we are supporting early years educators to build their expertise.
It is not just what is taught in those nurseries that counts, but where they are located: they are in primary schools, which is no accident. We are centring schools in their communities, starting early, working with the voluntary sector and private providers too, so that the move from nursery to school is a natural step, from one room to another, sometimes even in the same building, as is the case at St Anne’s church academy in Weston-super-Mare. Having a nursery on site means that stronger, longer lasting relationships with families can be built. Parents feel that they are part of the community, so they engage more when their child starts nursery and then moves into school. When their child starts reception, there are no big, scary changes, building the sense that school is where they are meant to be.
I saw that powerfully this week when I went to Peterborough to visit Fulbridge academy. Little Oak nursery sits at the heart of the school. While I was there, I spoke to Hannah, a working mum whose little boy, Nile, goes to the nursery. She told me all about the difference that Little Oak was making to her family, and about how her son is making friends and taking big strides in his learning, ready to join his two older siblings at school in September. The nursery plays a big part in making Fulbridge academy the centre of that community.
It is the same for free breakfast clubs, which is why we announced the 750 early adopters this year. Schools are the beating hearts of their communities, where children come together to eat, learn and grow. It is good for attendance and achievement, for behaviour and belonging, and for children and their life chances. That is the point: this is action for them, to give them the start that they deserve, because that is my No. 1 priority, built on a deep and fierce commitment to the children of this country in the first years of their lives, taking their first steps into the world.
In our youngest children’s faces and in the faces of all who work with them, we see something that for so long has been missing from our country: hope. We see the hope of a brighter and better future, the hope of a secure and prosperous world, the hope that tomorrow can be better than today and the hope that this is a Government that are on their side. That is the future that we shape together, not face alone. That is the hope that so many people in our country have—that our best days lie ahead of us. That is what the people of this country chose in the general election last July, when they chose hope over fear, and chose a brighter tomorrow, not a bitter yesterday.
And that is why I am so focused on getting on and delivering change, because it matters so much for lives now, not in some distant future. Early years are where futures are made, where life chances are won and where healthier societies are built. That is the prize on offer. Our youngest generation is the first generation for whom opportunity is open to all, right from the start, and I know that Members from across the House will agree that that is a prize worth fighting for. I commend this statement to the House.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings real expertise to this place, through her background and wealth of experience in education. Through the expansion that we are rolling out this year, parents will see considerable savings, but crucially it will ensure that all our children get the best possible start in life. While I recognise her disappointment that her own constituency did not benefit this time around, I note that Portsmouth South secured a school-based nursery this time around. Of course, this is only phase 1 of what will be a wider roll-out as time progresses.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Access to flexible, high-quality early years provision gives children the start they deserve and parents the choice they need to live their lives, and it is one of the best possible investments we can make in the future of our country. For those families living in childcare deserts left by the previous Conservative Government, today’s announcement will be welcome news.
I welcome the sorely needed uplift in the early years pupil premium, but school-based nurseries can only ever be part of the puzzle. We will never fix the crisis in early years without fixing the deep problems facing private and charitable providers. They deliver the vast bulk of the Government’s free entitlement, yet they face some of the toughest challenges in making ends meet. The Government’s national insurance hike, the failure to ensure that rates actually cover delivery costs and damaging guidance to local authorities on funding agreements, which came into effect this week, mean that many are struggling to stay afloat. We have already heard that the Early Years Alliance survey found that four in 10 said they would reduce their number of funded places for three-year-olds and four-year-olds in the next year. Some 94% said they would be forced to raise their fees for parents for non-funded hours, and almost a third said they were likely to permanently close. Can the Secretary of State tell me how that is extending choice for parents? Building Blocks nursery in Teddington in my constituency is now operating at a loss and faces some incredibly painful decisions that will hurt parents, children and staff.
While I welcome today’s announcement, will the Secretary of State commit to an urgent review of the rates paid for free entitlements to ensure that they cover delivery costs? Will she finally take this opportunity to recognise the deep damage that the national insurance hike is doing and ensure that early years providers are exempted? Finally, will she look again at the damaging guidance issued by her Department on charging and funding agreements?
British Indian Ocean Territory
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I advise the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a critical time for our two countries when it comes to both our place and our standing in the world. All we have seen from this Government is an epic failure in diplomacy, and concession after concession. The Labour Government have shown themselves to be weak. Not only have they undermined our strategic defence interests and our very close relationship with our dear ally, but they are putting our territories at risk and wasting taxpayers’ money. We need a Government who stand tall in the world and who fly the Union flag with pride rather than the white flag of surrender.
The deal is an epic failure in diplomacy and it is causing our standing in the world to fall. The House must vote for our motion to defend our national interests and Britain’s standing in the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I must inform the House there will have to be an immediate five-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, which obviously excludes those from the Front Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. As the shadow Minister will know, the Minister is not obliged to take interventions from the Dispatch Box.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me explain to Conservative Members, because I feel they are perhaps unaware of the fact that the ICJ advisory opinion is simply the most eye-catching of a huge number of legal concerns around the present situation. Those who had the genuine security of that base at the front of their minds would be determined to secure its future. Without a deal, it is inevitable that Mauritius would pursue a legally binding judgment against UK sovereignty.
Since 2015, 28 international judges and arbitrators have expressed views on the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are keen to shout. I wonder if they can tell me how many have agreed with the UK’s position. They are very quiet. That is because not a single one of those arbitrators and judges have expressed support for the UK claim about sovereignty. That lack of legal certainty would have real-world impacts on base operations and create space for our enemies. Some of those impacts would be on simple but crucial things, such as securing contractors and getting overflight clearances. I regret that the Opposition said not a single word about the issue of securing contractors and getting overflight clearances. There were other matters that they did not talk about.
Anneliese Dodds
No, I will keep speaking, as is my right. Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius, it would pursue its legal campaign; it has made that very clear, as the shadow Minister knows. That would lead to an inevitable, legally binding judgment, which would be—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will not have this level of shouting at the Minister. I will hear her, and of course, it is within her right not to take interventions. Please can Members approach this debate in an orderly fashion?
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, in that kind of situation, we would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination, such as the International Telecommunication Union. [Interruption.] I heard from the Opposition Front Bench, “Let them have a go.” The consequences of letting them have a go could be that critical spectrum for telecommunications that is essential for our security is compromised, another issue about which I sadly heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Witham.
The legal necessity of this deal has rightly been recognised by successive Governments.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise, but to prevent the Minister from inadvertently misleading the House, in answer to a parliamentary question, we have it from Sir Chris Bryant, ironically—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Francois, you know that you must not refer to Members by their name.
Mr Francois
We have it from the telecoms Minister that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum, so it could not interfere with satellites. That is the Government’s official position; does the Minister now wish to correct her remarks?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think I will respond to the point of order first. The shadow Minister will know that that was not a point of order, but a point of debate.
Anneliese Dodds
I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but he surely understands the difference with access to spectrum, which is the key issue here. It is critical. I find it strange that he allots that issue so little consideration, when it could be of such strategic importance to our country.
The right hon. Member for Witham talked about remarks from Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam. It appears that she has been spending a lot of time looking him up at length on the internet. I therefore find it rather strange that she did not see what he stated on 5 February, where he set the record straight about the terms of the deal. Perhaps she does know about this, but chose not to refer to it in her remarks. He confirmed what this Government have been saying with clarity and consistency since the announcement of a political agreement in October, so let me spell out what we have said about the duration and terms of the treaty and what Prime Minister Ramgoolam confirmed, which appears to have been missed in previous comments.
The deal will be for 99 years and can be extended if both sides agree. The UK will additionally have a right of first refusal, meaning that the islands cannot be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing, and there are no changes to the rights and authorities that we will have to operate the base. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the treaty after signature, when it is laid for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process before ratification. We would be delighted to have the right hon. Lady’s scrutiny, as would be usual.
To suggest that there was an acceleration of the negotiations before the Mauritian election flies in the face of the facts, as has been the case with many comments from the Opposition on this matter. When we took office, the negotiations had been ongoing for two years. We continued to engage with the Mauritian Government and to work in lockstep with the United States. While we recognise that it was in the interests of all sides to finalise the deal quickly, we did not put a completion date on the negotiations. We did not do so then and we do not intend to do so now. We are of course engaging with the new US Administration, including discussing the full details of the agreement, just as we engaged with the previous US Administration. I find it rather strange that the Opposition are confused about the nature of modern negotiations.
As we and Mauritius have said repeatedly, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia, continuing the practice of the previous Government. As is usual in these circumstances, negotiations have been led by officials with clear guidance and oversight from Ministers.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am struck by the fact that it has taken nearly an hour of discussion and debate in this Chamber for Chagossians to be mentioned for the first time—not a single member of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition chose to mention Chagossians in their multiple interventions. I have spoken to Chagossians over many months and years, and they have told me they are genuinely fearful of being traded from the United Kingdom to Mauritius, a Government who have—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is getting to his point, but interventions really should be shorter. He could have put in to speak in the debate, had he wished. He has a few more moments—that is all.
Dr Pinkerton
I would simply ask the Minister: what role have Chagossians played in the negotiations thus far? She mentions a marine protected area—I know for a fact that Chagossians have not been consulted on that particular point.
Anneliese Dodds
What I have said is that there is clear risk to critical functions of that base on Diego Garcia because of legal jeopardy. Conservative Members do not appear to be aware of those issues for contractors, insurers and communications and from the risk of hostile states when it comes to the outlying islands, while the Government are concerned about that risk. I detailed earlier the 28 different judges and arbitrators who have expressed an opinion on this. To suggest that there is no legal jeopardy is, I am afraid, for the birds.
To conclude, this deal has had support across the US national security apparatus. The previous US Administration supported the deal. The new US Administration is rightly ensuring that they are satisfied. The deal has been welcomed by India and the UN Secretary General. The shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned China in her remarks. Again, I know that Conservative Governments have been confused about China. They have oscillated all over the place in their relationship, but can she or anyone tell me whether China has welcomed this deal. No? A pin could drop, Madam Deputy Speaker. China has not welcomed it because it knows that it will strengthen our country’s position in the region for the foreseeable future. Security must be our priority, but we have also negotiated an agreement that protects the unique marine environment and reflects Chagossians’ demand. This deal will protect the base, solidify our relationship with our closest ally and reinforce the UK’s global leadership. Anyone who values UK national security and that of our allies should back this deal.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsTuesday 25th February 2025
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (3 Feb 2025)
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I had not been planning to introduce a formal time limit, but Members might reflect on how many are still standing and perhaps restrain themselves to five minutes or so.
Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, I will make a statement updating the House on the Government’s work to deliver free breakfast clubs and give every child the best start in life. This is a Government who act on their principles, deliver on their promises and drive the change that the country needs—change that is felt in our villages, towns and cities; change that will help families with the cost of living; and change that lifts the life chances of our children across the country. Change begins and the biggest difference can be made during those early years of life, and on into primary school, when the possibilities still stretch out.
Our action is urgent. Far too many children growing up in this country are held back by their background and denied the opportunity to go on to live happy and healthy lives, with the bad luck of a tough start weighing down their life chances. I will not stand by while those children are let down, because I believe that background should not mean destiny. Every single child deserves the very best start in life. To achieve and thrive at school is the right of all children.
Our manifesto outlined the action a Labour Government would take, and now, not yet eight months on from the election, we are delivering change in early years, change in primary schools and change in our country. I am delighted to update the House today that I have confirmed more than 750 schools as early adopters of our free breakfast club scheme. That is a promise made, and a promise kept. I will always act to protect working families’ livelihoods for children and their parents. It is for them that we are working tirelessly to deliver change, and it is for them that we will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school in this country. That is what we said we would do in our manifesto, and it is exactly what we are doing now.
Evidence shows why this matters so much. When schools introduce breakfast clubs, behaviour improves, attendance increases and attainment grows. That is no surprise when we are giving children the gift of a calm, welcoming start to the day, filled with friends, fun and food. It is the foundation for success that every child needs. This is about parents as well as children. Our new breakfast clubs will save families up to £450 a year, putting money directly back into parents’ pockets. That is why we are moving ahead with such energy and urgency, for children and for parents.
We are working to cement the clubs in legislation through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Thousands of schools have applied to take part—an indication of overwhelming demand, and a spur to act. From this April, free breakfast clubs will begin to reach more than 180,000 children, and 70,000 pupils from schools in the most deprived parts of the country will be able to take part. Our early adopter schools are drawn from all kinds of places: cities and villages, north and south, east and west, affluent areas and more disadvantaged communities, big schools and smaller schools, mainstream schools and special schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities. They include schools that have had a club before and those that have not; schools in which parents have had to pay for breakfast clubs in the past; and schools in which places are limited. That variety is key. It gives us a representative sample, so we can see what works, when, where, why and how, guided by the best evidence. That is how we will maximise the impact of the full roll-out, bringing the benefits to children across the entire country.
We are taking a new approach—the challenges we face demand it. Breakfast clubs are one part, but we are going further and delivering more change for children. We are a mission-led Government, bringing meaningful change that is felt in our towns, our cities, and our communities, and I am proud to be leading our mission across Government to break down the barriers to opportunity. In December the Prime Minister unveiled our plan for change, and within that plan lies a vital milestone: a record proportion of children starting school, ready to learn. That is crucial to closing the opportunity gap; all children arriving at school, ready to achieve and to thrive gets right to the heart of what it means to have the very best start in life.
I believe that delivering the best start in life is about families—parents and children. Breakfast clubs are one piece of the puzzle, but our action starts earlier in life, with great early education and childcare. It is something that I have spent many years in this House fighting for, but that our childcare system has denied families. There are areas underserved with childcare places yet overwhelmed with demand; additional hours are offered nationally, but they are unavailable to families locally. The Opposition’s failure to keep their promises is the reason their party suffered such an emphatic defeat at the last election. A promise made but not acted on is not a promise at all, and a pledge without a plan to deliver is meaningless. That is why this Government are committed to delivering the entitlements that parents were promised before the last election. As a result of this Government’s hard work in making that pledge a reality, families can now access 15 hours of Government-funded childcare a week from when their child is nine months old. From September, that will increase to 30 hours a week, matching the offer for three and four-year-olds.
This Government have matched the pledge with a plan—a promise now backed by funding. In the next financial year alone, we will invest more than £8 billion in early years entitlements, an increase of more than £2 billion. On top of that is a new £75 million expansion grant to support the sector to provide the extra places and staff needed. We will use those 30 hours a week to combine childcare with great early education, and to give children the very best start in life. I want to double down on support for those children who need it most, in the areas that need it most. That is why I introduced the biggest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium. Childcare delivers for parents too. Just like breakfast clubs, the entitlements give parents power, choice and freedom over their lives, enabling them to go back to work if that is what they want to do—work choices for parents; life chances for children. These are the steps we are taking and the promises we are keeping to support families.
I am determined to see the change through, but it is not a shot in the dark. The value of giving children the best start in life, and the power of spreading breakfast clubs across the country, is as clear as day and there for all to see if we know where to look. On the northern edge of St Helens sits Carr Mill primary school. Children at Carr Mill can come in before the school day starts and eat breakfast with their friends in the school bistro. When they reach year 5, they are invited to become bistro leaders. Those young leaders help their peers to get a good breakfast, but they also learn about responsibility, caring for their classmates, and what it means to be part of a community. Parents see the change in their children, who are more confident and eager to go to school in the morning, and the younger ones look up to the bistro leaders.
It is not just the breakfast; it is the club too—helping children to settle, showing them that they belong in school, getting them ready to learn, and shaping not just the students of today but the citizens of tomorrow. It sets children up for success in school and in life, because that wider goal we are chasing of giving every child the best start in life means giving them the best start to their school day, each and every day, week after week, year after year. That is how we are breaking the link between background and success, and how we are delivering the change that parents voted for. That is how we are driving the change that the children of this country deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Bridget Phillipson
The shadow Minister asks a number of questions, but at no point did he welcome the massive investment and the benefits that this provision will bring to children across our country, including in his own constituency—not a word of support. I hope when the breakfast club in his constituency opens, he might take time to visit that school and see the massive benefits being delivered to children and families.
Before I respond to the number of detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, I note once again how disappointing it was that the Conservatives voted to block the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Let us remind ourselves what that would have meant. It would have completely stopped the roll-out of free breakfast clubs we are announcing today; they will be rolled out across England subject to the progress of the Bill. It would have stopped us limiting the number of branded uniform items that schools can demand, which again will save families hundreds of pounds at a time when we know that they are under real pressure. Most shamefully of all, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it would have stopped dead some of the most far-reaching child protection measures in a generation, just so that the Conservatives could grab a cheap headline.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the national school breakfast programme and the investment there. That programme is an online platform from which schools can order food. It covers 75% of food only; it does not cover wider costs, and schools are required to contribute the remaining 25%, so there is a significant difference in what we are setting out. One in seven of the schools in the pilot scheme that we are announcing today have no before-school provision. The rest have a mix of paid-for provision or, in many cases, school breakfast clubs where caps are in place and the numbers are limited. The breakfast clubs we are introducing will be free and available to every child and every parent who seeks to take them up. That is why it is estimated that parents will save £450 a year.
When it comes to evidence of the roll-out, the hon. Gentleman has said on many occasions that he is interested in evidence-based policymaking. The evidence is very clear that the impact is greatest at primary school level, and we would think that he would recognise that.
The purpose behind the early adopters is not simply to demonstrate to parents the difference that a Labour Government are bringing and a real difference to children’s lives; they also allow us to test really effectively what works ahead of a full national roll-out. That is why we want to work with school leaders as part of this programme to ensure that all children are able to benefit from universal free breakfast clubs across our country, including children with SEND.
The Conservatives have no plan for education except preserving the tax breaks for students in private schools, whereas we have a plan to give every child the best start in life. If they are going to spend the next five years defending their record, we will get on and deliver the change that this country voted for. We made a promise to the people of this country, and today we are delivering on the promise we made.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today. I welcome the news that St Luke’s Church of England primary school in my constituency will be one of the early adopters of a universal breakfast club under the programme.
All too often, children with special educational needs and disabilities are excluded from extracurricular activities, and it is the parents of children with SEND who often find it the hardest to access childcare. It is essential that children with SEND have equal access to breakfast clubs in both mainstream and specialist schools. What steps are being taken to ensure that that is the case, that schools have the capacity to provide specialist staff where needed and that any additional home-to-school transport costs, which are often essential in enabling children with SEND physically to access a breakfast club, will be met?
Bridget Phillipson
Some 754 schools have been selected to take part in the early adopters scheme, of which 704 are mainstream schools and 50 are special schools and alternative provision settings. That is important, because we want to make sure that all children in time are able to benefit from the roll-out of breakfast clubs. We will work closely with schools and sector experts to develop the programme as we intend to roll it out. I really want to learn through the early adopter schools how we can best create a truly universal and inclusive breakfast school provision.
I recognise that delivering breakfast clubs may be particularly challenging for special and alternative provision schools. We have invited them to take part in the early adopters scheme so that we can make sure that, as we roll out across the country, including in mainstream schools, the needs of all children are properly catered for as part of the programme.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
With three in 10 children growing up in poverty, any measure to tackle child hunger is to be welcomed to enable them to learn and flourish, so I congratulate the 750 schools selected as breakfast club early adopters. The learnings from those pilots will be absolutely critical as the Government seek to scale up the programme.
A number of questions that I have previously put to Ministers still stand, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address some of them. Many school leaders have raised concerns about the proposed funding rates, which are reportedly around 60p per child per day. If the pilots clearly show that those rates are insufficient, will Ministers commit to reviewing and increasing them? Schools simply cannot afford to make savings elsewhere, such as in teaching budgets.
Will Ministers review school food standards to ensure that breakfasts are specifically addressed, as the recent House of Lords report on childhood obesity recommended? What consideration has been given to how the 30 minutes of universal free childcare provision will interact with existing breakfast club provision? Most commuting parents need more than 30 minutes of childcare in the morning.
The Child Poverty Action Group has highlighted that breakfast clubs will probably secure only around 40% take-up. The most vulnerable children, especially those in temporary accommodation who travel long distances, may not make it to school in time for breakfast. The Children’s Society has argued, as have the Liberal Democrats, that where money is scarce, we should target resources at those who most need them. As such, why will the Government not prioritise expanding eligibility for free school meals—a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day when children are guaranteed to be in school —so that all children in poverty, whether in primary or secondary, are being fed? Is it not high time that Ministers introduced automatic enrolment into free school meals for all children?
Finally, on the Secretary of State’s childcare announcements, can she confirm how much of that money will go into plugging the gap left by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, which will put significant pressure on providers and push up costs for parents?
Bridget Phillipson
I am delighted that four schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency are taking part, and I look forward to all primary schools across Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland benefiting from the roll-out of breakfast clubs across our country. This Labour Government are on the side of working parents, putting more money back into parents’ pockets, supporting parents at the start of the school day and cutting the costs of the school day. That is the difference that a Labour Government bring, and that is the difference that electing my hon. Friend to this place brings.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the ceasefire agreement in Gaza and detail our latest efforts to get aid to those in desperate need.
This is a fragile ceasefire, but it brings much-needed hope for Israeli and Palestinian people. The agreement to end the fighting and release the hostages is what this Labour Government have been pressing for from the moment we came to office. I thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts, and echo the Prime Minister in wishing Emily Damari and the other former hostages well as they begin to recover from their horrific ordeals. We continue to call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, including the remaining hostages with links to the UK.
Civilians in Gaza have endured suffering that defies belief, and this deal brings hope that they can start to rebuild their lives. In the days since the guns were silenced, Israel has opened up mechanisms to surge in aid. The UN and aid organisations have been working tirelessly to deliver the humanitarian aims of the ceasefire agreement. After so much time waiting at the border—delays that I saw for myself in December—trucks are now streaming in. Partners on the ground report that more than 200,000 food parcels have been dispatched to more than 130 distribution points since the ceasefire. This Government have been at the forefront of the humanitarian effort in Gaza since we came to office—overturning the suspension of funding to UNRWA, and then boosting our support; assisting UK-Med field hospitals to help the injured; working with Egypt to support those medevac-ed out of Gaza; and providing vital resources to UNICEF and the World Food Programme.
Today I am pleased to announce that the UK is investing in the ceasefire. UK support will be distributed to the UN and key medical partners, so that tens of thousands of civilians receive the healthcare, food and shelter that they need. That support will amount to £17 million to get more aid into Gaza and restore services. The figure also includes £2 million for the World Bank to support the construction and restoration of critical water and energy infrastructure. The UK has already helped about 284,000 people in Gaza to access water, sanitation and hygiene services. Today’s uplift brings our commitment for the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region to £129 million this financial year.
I am also pleased to announce that, this morning, Jordanian air force helicopters started landing in Gaza with UK-funded medical supplies and logistical support from UK armed forces. I thank Jordan for its excellent commitment to getting aid in, in such challenging circumstances, and we will continue to support our Jordanian partners in this initiative. However, more action is needed. The air bridge to Gaza is no substitute for road routes, which must remain open. We also call on Israel to allow in more essential items such as tents, mattresses and medical equipment. As people start to move home, basic services need to be put back in place, and unexploded bombs and mines cleared. Without that, even more lives will be lost—and, of course, the UN and humanitarian agencies must be able to operate freely.
The Government have repeatedly stated the need for UNRWA to continue its lifesaving assistance to the people of Gaza, Jerusalem and the west bank. The Knesset legislation taking effect on 30 January risks impeding the progress made since the ceasefire; Israel must allow the agency to continue to operate. The legislation does not and cannot change the fact that Israel has a responsibility under international law to facilitate humanitarian assistance. As the UN Security Council heard last week, 1 million Gazan children need support to process their traumatic experiences—their suffering cannot be understated—and about 15,500 patients need medical evacuation, according to the World Health Organisation. Routes must be opened for them to obtain that treatment.
The UK and the wider international community stand ready to support Palestinians as they begin to rebuild their lives, their homes and their communities. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge ahead. The overwhelming majority of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed, the economy has collapsed, and basic services, including energy and water, have been knocked out. We are therefore working with partners urgently to find the best ways in which to finance and support recovery and reconstruction efforts. It is essential that the coming surge of assistance is properly co-ordinated, and with the access and security to reach those in need. The Palestinian Authority has a crucial role to play, and we are providing technical and financial assistance to the authority, including assistance to support the urgent recovery of basic services.
The UK has always been clear about the fact that this ceasefire is just the first step. We must build confidence on all sides to help sustain it, progress through all its phases, and turn it into a lasting peace that assures the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. We in the UK will focus all our efforts on keeping up the momentum, using every diplomatic channel available. As Members will know, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East kept up the drumbeat of engagement during their visits to Egypt and the United Nations last week. We will keep up the pace until every hostage is released, aid reaches all those in need, and Palestinians are able to rebuild their homes and their lives. I commend this statement to the House.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues, as she has done consistently. First, in terms of how the UK is working with the Palestinian Authority on these issues, that support has included financial assistance around the reform programme but also the direct technical support around the reform programme that is necessary. Substantial reform is needed. There is a clear plan that has been driven by the Palestinian Authority, but we are determined to provide that technical support, and we have been doing so.
The issue of unexploded ordnance is of huge concern, particularly as we see people coming back to their homes, because there is a great danger that, in doing so, they will be impacted. There is a need for education and awareness raising around this, but there is also a need to remove that materiel; that is very important. The UK has been working with other countries and internationally on how we can ensure that that is the case, so that these communities are safe to return to.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the storage of UNRWA supplies. We are very clear, as we have been before, that UNRWA must have a key role in delivering humanitarian support and health and education services to Palestinians, whether that is in Gaza, the west bank or the wider region.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I join colleagues in supporting efforts to uphold the ceasefire agreement and release the hostages. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the eight hostages who have been killed by Hamas while taken hostage, and I join Members of the House in calling for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.
I want to denounce statements made suggesting that Palestinians should be forcibly displaced from their homes to other regions in the middle east. The only clearing out that should be taking place is of the unexploded ordnance across Gaza, where UN de-mining experts estimate that 5% to 10% of all ordnance is unexploded. What support are the UK Government providing for the safe de-mining of the region and for the unaccompanied children, of whom there are estimated to be 17,000?
Israeli legislation ceasing UNRWA’s operations is due to take effect this Thursday, posing a huge risk to the humanitarian response and the delivery of education and primary healthcare. Dismantling UNRWA now, outside a political process, will undermine the ceasefire agreement, sabotage Gaza’s recovery and weaken the international humanitarian response. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the continuity of humanitarian aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, given the ongoing existential threat to UNRWA’s operations?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will finish this statement at quarter past 3. Please can questions be a great deal shorter and, with respect, Minister, the answers as well?
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The suffering of civilians in Gaza is extreme, and I share her call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.
Does the Minister agree that we urgently need accountability for the Israeli Government’s violations of international law, as exhibited in the restriction of access to tents, mattresses, medical equipment and so on? Does she acknowledge that the only way we will make meaningful progress towards reconstruction efforts and longer-term peace is to hold the Israeli Government to account for these actions?
Several hon. Members rose—
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Since the ceasefire, we have seen an increase in killings and atrocities in Jenin. On Saturday, Israeli forces were responsible for the killing of a two-year-old girl. The extremist settlers are acting with impunity against the Palestinians. Will the Minister explain what actions this Government have taken to put pressure on Israel to prevent the ongoing atrocities in the west bank?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have been absolutely clear on that. Settler expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. The matter has been raised by a number of members of the ministerial team, not least the Foreign Secretary. He also announced new sanctions in October, which targeted illegal settler outposts and organisations that had supported violence against communities in the west bank.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for her statement. As a point of clarity, Members need to be present in the Chamber for the Minister’s statement if they wish to ask a question.
Sudan: US Determination of Genocide
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have to say that I am so pleased to see that we have very strong cross-party concern on this issue and a determination to really make a difference for those suffering so much in Sudan and beyond its borders as refugees. He is right to point out that, should there continue to be this level of instability in Sudan itself, that will have a further knock-on impact. We are already seeing people in Chad under considerable pressure when it comes to food supplies as very large numbers of people are coming through from Sudan, and we have seen the same in South Sudan, so this conflict really is having a terrible impact regionally as well as in Sudan.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive responses.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Cooper
I absolutely agree. Primary school children, who typically wear polo shirts, need five days’ worth, plus PE kit. This measure will make an enormous difference. Although it has been great to see organisations such as the Winsford Uniform Exchange in my constituency grow and provide people with lower-cost and greener alternatives, bringing costs down for families is absolutely the right priority. The measures on breakfast clubs and school uniforms may be the two most visible in the Bill, and I hope that they will be part of the Government’s lasting legacy of supporting all children to achieve and thrive.
The Bill covers a vast array of measures across the spectrum of children’s social care and schools policy, as we have discussed this afternoon. I will focus my comments predominantly on the schools side, although I want to take a moment to say something about the single unique identifier for children. In Lord Laming’s report on the death of Victoria Climbié in 2000, he recommended that the Government explore the safeguarding benefits of a national children’s database—effectively a single unique identifier—to address poor communication and data sharing between agencies.
In report after case after report after case, the issue of weak multidisciplinary working continues to arise. The measure proposed in this Bill, alongside the clarification of the legal basis for information sharing and the creation of multi-agency child protection teams, will undoubtedly help, but they are the start of the story, not the end. The success of this measure will be in ensuring that the single unique identifier is consistently captured in reforming working practices so that information sharing is part of the culture, and in making it clear that local authority boundaries, health authority boundaries, police authority boundaries and, in my part of the world, national boundaries are not a barrier to good safeguarding practice, which has become more important as children travel further to appropriate education or care settings.
I want to cover the reforms that the Bill makes to academies in the minute or so that I have left. I am not ideological about the academy system. I have seen multi-academy trusts that provide an outstanding level of support for their schools; equally, I have seen MATs that have not worked and that have provided local leaders with few levers to push for improvements on behalf of their communities. The reality is that the previous Government left us with a school system that has become increasingly fragmented and lacks coherence at local, regional and national levels.
The governance model is rarely the key determinant of whether a school will provide good outcomes for children; as someone once said, this is about standards, not structures. On that basis, many of the reforms proposed in the Bill are entirely sensible, such as the requirement to teach the national curriculum, the requirement to employ qualified teachers, and giving the schools adjudicator the final say on admission numbers. All of these measures will get us closer to some consistency and common standards across the sector.
I will leave it there. I just want to say that this legislation—
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement by the Chancellor that the money raised from VAT on private schools will fund breakfast clubs for pupils in my constituency, giving them the best start to the day. I want to highlight Mattersey primary school in my constituency, a rural school that is one of the smallest in the country, with only 38 pupils, 51% of whom, shockingly, receive pupil premium funding. The school currently runs a breakfast club for £1 a day and has applied to be an early adopter of the free breakfast club scheme. As the policy is rolled out across the country, I urge the Secretary of State to learn from the school how it runs its breakfast club, and I invite her to visit the school.
For some children, home-schooling has been valuable and enabled them to be educated in surroundings where they feel safe and can achieve their very best. However, there are huge dangers and, in some cases, home-schooling has become a vehicle that have put vulnerable children at greater risk. I am concerned by seeing too many children out in the streets during school hours, with parents caught up in a generational cycle of benefit dependency and their children missing out on school because they are supposedly being home-schooled. At an early age, those children are already facing a future of living on benefits and in a black economy culture. That concern is amplified where children are being hidden, whether they are like Sara Sharif or part of extreme religious groups controlling children’s lives and welfare, in which the victims of abuse are silenced. All of us can and should support the Government’s recommendations for oversight and registration in this sector.
The previous MP for Bassetlaw, Lord Mann, gave evidence on behalf of more than 30 people to Professor Jay’s inquiry. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) were the only MPs who did that. In Bassetlaw, I sat and listened to victims of child abuse. This is a crisis in all communities. The idea that the Government should give action against one kind of child abuse priority is obscene and dangerous. Anyone who does not understand that should read the report by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. There is a lot of unfinished business; this is not just about legislation. My office has been working since the moment I was elected to get my constituent Terry Lodge, who was enslaved as a child in a foundry, the compensation that Nottinghamshire county council has accepted that it will pay for his loss of childhood, but which is still to be paid out. That was in our country—in white, rural England. Child abuse is in every corner of our country. I am not prepared to wait three or four more years for action, and neither should the victims or the survivors be required to wait any longer.
I want to read out a message from a survivor that I have received while sitting in the Chamber:
“I’m guessing victims of abuse want to be believed, to see justice served and to hold the people who knew and didn’t help accountable, not listen to another multi-million pound inquiry lasting 7 years, which points out the obvious.”
I will end by saying that instead of making this issue into a political football, I will listen to my constituents—
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has highlighted the landmark nature of this Bill. Many of the most historically significant measures for improving child welfare and wellbeing have enjoyed cross-party support, and I am thinking here of the Children Act 1908, the—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions really do have to be brief. A lot of Members still wish to get in, and we are on a very tight time limit. The hon. Lady has already earned an additional minute of injury time, and I regret that I will not get all Members in if we continue to have long interventions.
Catherine Atkinson
I just wish to say that, nearly a decade after the national independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was set up, it is high time that the victims who so bravely gave evidence see action.
Jonathan Davies
I do support the concept of academies; they are a great legacy of the previous Government. But because those schools do not have to follow the national curriculum, some are gaming the system by not teaching a full, holistic programme of subjects. There has been a massive decline—over 50%—in the number of arts entries at GCSE since 2010. Some schools offer no art subjects at all at GCSE level. That matters for our economy and the UK’s standing around the world, and for who we are as individuals, how we understand the world and how we interact with each other. I welcome the Bill’s measures to provide a more holistic education to children.
I also want to speak briefly about breakfast clubs. They will be very welcome in Derbyshire, because Derbyshire county council increased the cost of school dinners by £1 last year—£150 a year—on top of what they already cost for parents. That will help with the cost of living crisis. But I ask that the Minister make sure that, as we implement this legislation—providing it goes through—we have the right checks and balances in place to ensure that local authorities such as Derbyshire, where Ofsted found serious issues with SEND, are fulfilling their statutory obligations to ensure that children who rely on home-to-school transport can access breakfast clubs.
Neil O’Brien
I am pressed for time, so I will see if I can get to the hon. Lady at the end.
Our amendment is also the first opportunity that MPs will have during the Bill’s proceedings to vote for a proper national inquiry into the grooming gangs. As the Bill goes through, we will seek to make further amendments to ensure that this much-needed inquiry happens. The current discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there. It did so because a local inquiry would not have the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, cannot take evidence under oath and cannot requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men who led the Greater Manchester local investigation resign because they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry and say that there should instead be local inquiries. But there have been years over which they should have happened, and they have not happened.
In many cases, the local officials are part of the problem and even part of the cover-up, so they cannot be the people to fix this. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but take, for example, the case of Keighley, where my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years. [Interruption.] Last night, while Ministers were here saying that there should be a local inquiry, in Keighley they were blocking a local inquiry—even as they spoke. So that is not the answer.
The Government hide behind the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It was an important first step, but what it was not and never intended to be was a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. It looked at half a dozen—just half a dozen—places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were 40 to 50 places where grooming gangs operated ,and the voices of the victims in those places have never been heard. [Interruption.] Having a proper national inquiry does not stop anyone getting on and implementing the recommendations of the Jay report. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the Jay report, recommendation 4, is to increase public awareness. Without a national inquiry, it is clear that we will not get to the bottom of this issue and that the people who looked the other way or covered up will not be held to account. So far, how many people in authority have been brought to justice or held to account? The answer is zero. [Interruption.] Tonight, we have a chance to change that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am going to allow the shadow Minister to finish, but I will hear him. He is perfectly within his rights if he chooses not to give way.
Neil O’Brien
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some people really do not want to hear the voices of the victims. [Interruption.]
Even though no one in authority has been held to account, the Government seem to think that there is nothing further to be learned. I do not think that is right. This afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Victims are calling for one, so what are we waiting for?
There are real challenges that we should be facing: recruitment, discipline and attendance. Instead, we have a Bill that just takes us backwards. As one of the nation’s leading educators, Sir Daniel Moynihan, said today on “World at One”:
“We are worried in the sector about what the problems are that the changes are designed to fix. We can offer better pay. It’s not clear why constraining that solves a problem. Why academies…should be constrained beats me…We’re hoping that some of this will be amended. It would be a terrible shame if the reforms that Labour introduced over 20 years ago…were watered down.”
Likewise, the Confederation of School Trusts is warning that the loss of academy freedoms proposed in the Bill risk making it
“more difficult for trusts to do the hard work of improving schools in the most challenging circumstances”.
I remember what state schools were like in the ’80s and ’90s. In my school, it was chaotic, with loads of fights, discredited progressive teaching methods, failed kids and good teachers being ground down. [Interruption.] You think it is funny, but the life chances of the kids I was at school with were flushed away by your disastrous ideology. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Minister will know that I did not flush away any child’s life chances. Perhaps he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion.
Neil O’Brien
I am. On a happy note, I also got to see the best of state education. I went to an amazing sixth form that benefited from the freedoms that the Conservative Government gave it. I pay tribute to the inspiring principal of that college, Kevin Conway, who helped so many kids in Huddersfield in his lifetime. I saw what state education could be. I saw the best of it. Freedom works, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not be here today if it did not.
I am heartbroken by the Bill. It genuinely trashes the cross-party reforms that we have had over 30 years. We can see they have worked, yet we are trashing them. I am begging Ministers—begging them—to change their minds.