Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I thank Sir David Bell for his work on this important review. I pay tribute to him for the thoughtful approach that he has taken, and thank him for taking the time to meet me during the review, which gave us the opportunity to discuss a disgraceful antisemitic attack on a child in my constituency that occurred in recent months—an abhorrent and devastating incident, the like of which should simply never happen.

The review highlights the important role of schools and colleges in tackling antisemitism, and in helping children and young people to navigate difficult, complex and challenging issues. This is ever more important in the age of social media, and in the context of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. How will the Secretary of State ensure that teachers have the capacity and skills to rise to the scale of this challenge, and to meet their obligations on political impartiality, while helping our children and young people to navigate the serious and complex challenges in our society? We must ensure that education plays the fullest possible role in stamping out antisemitism, fostering community cohesion and creating the engaged, thoughtful and responsible citizens we all want to see.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership, and for the work that she continues to do as Chair of the Education Committee. I know of the incident involving her constituent, which we have discussed a couple of times, and I was as horrified as she was to hear of it. I hope that the students and schools involved in that incident are listening today and understand that they should have gone further. They can still go further in challenging what happened to her young constituent, and take action.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must support teachers and school and college leaders in developing capacity, skills and confidence, so that they feel supported in challenging these behaviours and creating an environment where this can be discussed. It is absolutely critical that students understand that certain ideas are wrong, and what it means when they are expressed. As she knows, we are in the middle of updating the curriculum. A new citizenship curriculum is coming on stream in primary and secondary schools, and we will ensure this issue is included. We will also update teacher training, as well as doing all the other things that I have announced today, that were in the report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

May I put on record my condolences to the Prime Minister on the sad loss of his father?

The Education Committee strongly agrees with the Government’s focus on expanding opportunities for apprenticeships and high-quality technical and vocational education across the country, but too often young people who want to pursue apprenticeships are left to do their own research across multiple different platforms with varying application timescales. Last year, the Education Committee recommended that to help young people understand the full range of opportunities available to them and provide parity of esteem, there should be a single point of access for information about apprenticeships alongside vocational, technical and academic courses. Will the new Minister look again at that recommendation and seek to ensure young people wishing to do apprenticeships and vocational and technical courses are just as well supported as their peers who are applying for university?

[Paul Waugh]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work the Education Committee has done on this topic. She is right that there should be parity of esteem, and the equivalent of a UCAS system for children who are going into technical education. Baroness Smith is looking at precisely that subject, and we aim to come up with some answers soon.

Education and Skills Reform

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and welcome her to her place. I also warmly welcome the Government’s focus on boosting technical and vocational education, and giving them parity of esteem with academic routes.

The Children’s Commissioner has today highlighted the unacceptably high number of young people who are registered at college but attend less than 50% of the time. Colleges need the resources to address this problem by monitoring attendance more effectively and intervening to provide targeted support to students who need it, but despite being part of our state education system, colleges are on an uneven financial playing field, because, unlike schools, they are unable to claim back VAT. They have told my Committee again and again that they could do far more if this unfair and unjustifiable tax anomaly was corrected. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State to make representations to the Chancellor, ahead of the Budget, about colleges being allowed to claim back VAT in the same way that schools can?

[Lucy Powell]

I put on record my huge respect for my hon. Friend for chairing the Education Committee; I look forward to working closely with her and her Committee over the coming months. She has done fantastic work in this space. She is absolutely right: further education really is transformative, especially for some of the children who have been left behind by our broader education system. We have a number of reforms coming in that will help, and we have additional funding going in. I am particularly alive to issues with the transition from school to college and attendance at further education colleges. Those issues, and funding, are key focuses of the Alan Milburn review, which I am following closely. I hope to update the House once the report is published.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I know that Members across this House will have been sickened and devastated to hear reports of the abuse suffered by baby Preston Davey prior to his murder at the hands of his adoptive parents, in whose home he should have been safe. It is of concern that Preston was seen by several different professionals in the weeks and months before his murder. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 legislates for stronger safeguarding arrangements, including the introduction of multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority area. In the light of the serious safeguarding failings in Preston’s case and in other recent cases of children who should have been safe in the care of the state, will the Secretary of State set out the expected timetable for implementing these reforms? How quickly can we expect to see stronger safeguarding practice consistently nationwide?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for raising this shocking case. Our thoughts must be with all those who loved and knew Preston, and it is right that the evil abusers who committed those sickening and shocking crimes are now behind bars. The House can be assured that we take this extremely seriously. I have asked for independent experts to look at Oldham council, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS trust and the regional adoption agency to consider carefully all the issues and concerns that have been raised through this process. The child safeguarding practice review is commencing, led by the local safeguarding partnership with the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel working closely alongside to make sure it is of the highest quality. In response to the question that the Chair of the Select Committee asked, it is our intention to roll that out by March. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act represents the biggest upgrade to child protection legislation in a generation, and it is through those changes that we will make sure we keep all our children safe from harm.

Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister on his commitment to making a difference for children in the care system and for care leavers. It is a shocking reality that our care system has, over a long period of time, become so far removed from putting the essential needs of children and young people for secure, loving relationships at the heart of everything it does.

May I acknowledge the magnitude of the shift that the Minister has announced today? We do not often have moments like this in the House—we should have them more often. Having spoken to many, many care leavers over a long period of time, I know the difference that what the Minister has announced today has the potential to make for them. I welcome the fact that many of his commitments are consistent with recommendations from the Education Committee in our report.

May I ask the Minister for further detail on two areas? First, can he give an assurance that, as he works to deliver this transformation of the care system and support for care-experienced people, he will retain a focus on restoring the early intervention and family support that prevents children from entering the care system in the first place? Secondly, with the focus on regional care co-operatives, may I press him on their geography? They cover quite large geographies, and it is possible for a child to be placed in a regional care co-operative and still be placed a long way from home. In delivering on the detail of regional care co-operatives, will he give his attention to that issue and pay attention to the distance that children will need to travel within them?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Education Committee, not just for those remarks, but for the Committee’s work over the last few years in keeping a focus on these issues. I also thank her for her support for the Government always going further and taking more actions to improve outcomes for children and their families.

In answer to my hon. Friend’s first point, the fundamental shift required in this Parliament is that we start to see funding across the children’s social care system being rebalanced away from late-stage crisis spending towards earlier, intensive support for families. We are not leaving that to an annual check-in. Every quarter, my officials and I are monitoring the pounds being spent by children’s social care across the country, and we will be prepared to support and, if necessary, to intervene if the system reset that we expect is not being seen on the ground in how spending is done.

The geography of RCCs will be large. In some areas, they will have the footprint of a mayoral combined authority or multiple mayoral combined authorities, but there will be a specific target for creating homes that keep children in close proximity to their existing communities.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunate. I call Helen Hayes.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

First, I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools. I appreciate that the guidance previously proposed was clear and that schools must take account of Government guidance, but where an issue is unequivocal—and I think the need for mobile phones to be absent from schools unless there is a clear need for an exception is unequivocal—putting the matter into legislation is the most straightforward way to ensure compliance, and it provides clarity for the public.

However, what approach will the Minister take to the guidance accompanying this ban, particularly with regard to exceptions? There will be children who still need to have a phone in school for a variety of different reasons—for example, because they are young carers or because they rely on phone-enabled software for support with a disability or special educational need. At the Education Committee yesterday, one of our witnesses made an important point about how exceptions are to be treated when implementing a ban, which was that care needs to be taken regarding how the wider issues in the classroom are managed for children who have an exceptional need for a phone. Those issues include who gets to use the phone, what apps are allowed to be on that phone, and how children are kept safe from bullying in this context.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Chichester high school in my constituency has introduced Yondr pouches—I imagine there are many similar pouches. Children can take their phones to school, but then they have to put them in those lockable pouches. They do not have access to them throughout the day, and they can unlock the pouches when they leave school. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a potential solution, especially for children who need their phones for health reasons or who, for other reasons, need their devices to make sure they can be in school?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with the hon. Member—and, indeed, with the Opposition Front Bencher, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—that the ban must be on the basis that phones are not in bags during the school day, but are removed from children while they are at school. The point I was making was really about children who need to have their phone with them. There will be some exceptions, and the question of how that is worked through in the guidance is important for protecting those children from the pressures that might come with being the only child in a classroom who has access to their phone. Drawing up a list of exceptions is more straightforward than deciding how those exceptions should be managed in a classroom environment, so I hope the Minister will be able to provide some assurance on that point.

I now turn to Lords amendment 38. Yesterday, in the first of two evidence sessions on screentime and social media that are designed to enable the Select Committee to contribute to the Government’s consultation, we heard from three companies: TikTok, Meta and Roblox. Next week, we will hear from Snapchat, which withdrew from yesterday’s session at very short notice, much to our disappointment. We also heard from academics undertaking research in this area.

It was absolutely clear from the evidence those three companies gave us that we cannot continue to rely on the companies whose platforms are causing the problem to regulate themselves out of it. I think that parents and carers across the country would have been incredulous had they listened to our evidence session yesterday. We heard Meta say that it did not believe that its apps were in any way addictive, when it has just lost a court case in the US on that precise point. We listened to TikTok say that it was horrified that children were coming to harm on its site, as if that was a rare exception, when a police investigation found that such harm is widespread. We heard Roblox express confidence that exploitation cannot happen on its site, when an independent expert recently said that the risks of children coming to harm on Roblox were so high that children should never be left unattended while using it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the hon. Member gets to her feet, I remind her that we have to conclude at 4.16 and I need to get five or six more Members in to contribute. I hope that she will be coming to a conclusion soonish.

[Helen Hayes]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the reasons for the incredulity among those listening to the evidence yesterday was precisely that we recognise the addictive nature of social media. Frankly, the discussion yesterday felt like how a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the companies responsible for it continue to argue that the harm is minimal or non-existent and that anything in moderation is fine.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I will not take any further interventions because of the time left, if that is okay.

The need for urgent action to take children off social media in their crucial formative years is clear, so I welcome the Government’s consultation, the measures in the Bill to enable a ban and other regulatory measures to be introduced via statutory instrument with no need for further primary legislation.

In our evidence session yesterday, we also heard from academics about some of the complexity that must be considered if we are get to get a ban and any further regulatory measures right. For example, we questioned Roblox. It is not a social media company, because the primary activity on its platform is gaming, and it appeals to very young children. On Roblox, children can contact each other via a trusted friends feature and they can create content, and we have heard examples of some very disturbing content. They can be absorbed on their screens for hours at a time, and we know that there have been examples of children being groomed and contacted by people who want to do them harm. Roblox is not included in the Australian ban, because it is not a social media site, but there should be at least some consideration of the extent to which social media harms also extend to some gaming platforms, and of how children can be protected from that.

One of our witnesses questioned whether, in the UK context, 16 is the right age threshold for a ban. In Australia, young people do not have major exams at 16, and there should be consideration about whether the exact time that our young people are preparing for their GCSEs is the right time to be diving into social media for the first time, or whether a slightly younger or older threshold would be better. Next week, we will hear from parents and parent-led organisations, including the Molly Rose Foundation and Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey. It is important to note that these stakeholders have different views, and we will explore their disagreement and common ground through our questioning.

When—not if—we regulate to remove the pernicious influence of social media from children’s lives, it is vital that our regulation is effective, and I am frustrated by Opposition Members’ lack of acknowledgement of that complexity and the importance of not only acting, but getting it right.

Finally, will the Minister set out a clear timescale for regulation under statutory instruments, so that parents can be assured that there is an end point to the debate on this issue and that action—the right and effective action that we need to keep our children safe—is coming?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale]

I have a very personal interest in this: I have five grandchildren, ranging in age from 15 to nine, and there are another five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group living with my family. I want to see all of those young people protected. I understand peer pressure only too well. I understand that if one child has a smartphone, every child has to have a smartphone, or they feel left out. However, I know from all the surveys that have been carried out that the overwhelming majority of young people are crying out for guidelines, and for the ban that will make them all feel the same, and not feel excluded.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, we have the opportunity in the House of Commons, through this vehicle that is available to us, to take action this day, not in three months’ time, six months’ time or two years’ time. If we do not take this opportunity, a generation of young people will suffer, and we will be responsible. There is no need for that to happen.

Geriatric though I may be, I understand the difference in definition between a smartphone and a brick phone. It is perfectly possible for any child who has to have a phone to have a brick phone, at very modest cost, so that they can communicate on medically essential matters, or if there are caring issues. That is not a problem. We are not talking about brick phones; we are talking about smartphones.

[Helen Hayes]

I hesitate to intervene, but I think the right hon. Member perhaps has not understood that children with a modern hearing aid, for example, use an application on a smartphone, which cannot be put on to a brick phone. That necessitates having a smartphone in the classroom.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I do understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Those cases are very few and far between, and there can always be exceptions, where they are medically necessary. I do not believe that is a problem. I am saying to the Minister that we have an opportunity today to legislate. Do not prevaricate; do it!

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I recently met a young constituent who is hoping to start a legal apprenticeship. He told me that he has had to research each apprenticeship opportunity himself and, unlike his peers who are applying to university, he is having to apply in the crucial weeks before his A-levels, when he needs to be revising. The Government rejected the Education Committee’s recommendation that information on apprenticeships should be available via UCAS, so that students have a single source of all post-16 and post-18 opportunities, and that the timescale for applications should be aligned with university applications. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to make apprenticeships available to young people on a more equitable basis?

[Josh MacAlister]

As someone who represents a constituency with one of the highest proportions of young people not going to university and going through apprenticeship or technical routes, I recognise the Chair of the Education Committee’s description of the complexity of the system of applications and the timing issues. I am happy to speak to her and ensure that there is a proper dialogue between the Committee and the Department on that issue.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome Government amendment 17B, which strengthens obligations to support sibling contact for children who are looked after. As the Minister knows, this is often the most important relationship that those children have. I pay tribute to the Family Rights Group and Become, as well as the campaigners she mentioned, for their important work in this area. The Education Committee recommended that the Government collect data on sibling separation in the care system in order to drive improvements in this area. As part of the implementation of amendment 17B, will the Minister commit to data collection, so that we can be certain that this measure is having the intended effect?

[Olivia Bailey]

I echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to other campaigners, including Become. On her point about data collection, my the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is sitting next to me, is happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had significant and interesting contributions from both sides of the House so far. I will speak in support of Lords amendments 38 and 106. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) just set out in a powerful speech, social media is too often toxic in its effect on children, and parents who want to act—again, exactly as he just pointed out—fear isolating their children from their friends who are all online. Teachers, who want to protect children, spend their days investigating claims of cyber-bullying instead of boosting learning, which is their job. Our children struggle to escape the clutches of algorithms that are designed to be addictive.

That is why I will vote for Lords amendment 38, to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, it is a “fight for childhood”. That is a good slogan, because unlike most slogans it has some real heart and substance to it.

We need to support parents like John in Beverley, who tells me that his children feel constant pressure to be online and compare themselves endlessly with others. John is right. Those of us who are parents know that sometimes the kindest word we can say to a child is no—only to hear the inevitable response, “But Billy’s mum lets him do it.” It is not fair that parents like John, who are doing their best each day, face that battle alone.

Lords amendment 38 sets a clear boundary so that parents are not isolated in their decision making, and when John’s children ask why they cannot go on Instagram, he can say, “Sorry, but that is the law.” Since MPs seem to get blamed for pretty much everything else, if parents say, “It’s because Graham says you can’t; it’s not my fault,” I will take that. If as a result one child is happier and healthier, that is something we can all be pleased with.

Parents are not alone in saying that the relationship with technology is broken; teachers say it too. Hannah, a teacher from Hedon in my constituency, tells me that she deals with the consequences of online harms every single day and she fears the long-term impact on her pupils. Teachers such as Hannah are spending their time investigating what pupils have seen on Facebook or X, when, as I say, they should be teaching physics or art.

In too many schools, smartphones are everywhere. I never seek to be rude, and in particular not to the Minister, but she suggests that the problem is solved. The problem is not solved. Smartphones are everywhere in too many schools, meaning that students are scrolling, not learning, and staff are policing, not teaching. That is why I will also vote for amendment 106, which would require schools to ban smartphones during the school day. It means that governing bodies, headteachers and parents—whoever—have absolute clarity.

I did not really understand the Minister’s argument, suggesting that passing it into law would not have effect. If we pass a law to ban smartphones in schools, in primary legislation, I would be pretty confident that that would mean that schools would not have smartphones during the school day. She has probably been put up to it by her Secretary of State, who will not let her do the obvious and sensible thing, which is to listen to colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales studiously stuck to the party line but none the less made an emotionally powerful argument for action now, albeit just managing to say, “Well, if you have to do your consultation, get on with it.”

The arguments from the Minister do not really stack up. This is not political point scoring—I hope it is not —but children are suffering every single day and month that this goes on. If we know that it is wrong, if we know that it is harmful, if we know that it is damaging children’s futures and their mental health—we have parents in the Public Gallery who have lost their children as a result of this stuff—how can we say that we are just being thorough when there are no clear questions that we need an answer to and no clear questions were set out?

[Helen Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is an expert in this area.

[Helen Hayes]

I believe that there is a consensus across this House, both about the harms of social media and smartphones for our young people and about the urgent need for action. I have listened carefully to the contributions from Opposition Members but have heard no acknowledgment that, on some points of detail, there is genuine disagreement between different important stakeholders—including bereaved parents—on what exactly the solutions should look like. The Government’s consultation is affording the opportunity, for example, to the Education Committee to undertake some really detailed questioning of those important stakeholders who have differences of opinion. That will help the Government get to the right and effective approach. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that difference of opinion and the importance of probing it?

[Graham Stuart]

Again, with no disrespect to the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has made a stronger case, but lacking in the specifics. It would be important to understand exactly what it is that the Government wish to find out. Then we could better understand why there would be a cause for delay. I have not been able to understand precisely what that is.

Let us take the issue of smartphones in schools. We have absolute denunciation from the Minister of the use of smartphones in schools, yet a kind of smokescreen has been thrown up that somehow passing into statute that smartphones cannot be in schools during the school day is somehow not the solution. If there is evidence to suggest that schools will disapply primary statute that says smartphones can never be used in schools during the school day, and that headteachers up and down the land will literally break the law, okay, let us hear it. That seems like nonsense to me. What case is there? What do we need to know about smartphones to not just put this in the Bill and, as soon as it becomes law, see every single school in the land ensure that there are no smartphones, with no argument? It is obvious, is it not? I will happily give away to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood again.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. I think he would find it helpful to listen to the Education Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday next week, which will afford two hours of questioning of experts and important stakeholders in the field. I believe that we will make a useful contribution to helping the Government get to the right and implementable solutions during the consultation process. I encourage him to tune in to that.

SEND Provision and Reform

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for it.

The support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is an area in which my Committee has taken an intense interest. It is the single biggest challenge in our education system, with far-reaching consequences. The current system is failing children, families and the professionals who work with them, right across our country. It is causing deep distress, sometimes even trauma, for children and their families. The implications of the failing system for local authority finances are profound, and many professionals are put in the invidious position of being unable to deliver the education and support that children and young people require because of impossible constraints on resources and ever-increasing need.

The outcomes for children with SEND are unacceptably poor. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the description given by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that this is a system that is broadly working. A system that relies on parents having to battle every step of the way and having to go to tribunals to seek redress is an exclusionary and inequitable system. We need to be absolutely clear that it is failing and that the reform that is necessary to get it to work is comprehensive and far-reaching.

It is vital that the failures in the current system are addressed. It is vital on its own terms, because no child should feel that there is no place for them in our education system, that their needs are not understood or, even worse, as we have heard from some of our witnesses, that they are the problem. No parent should have to battle at every single stage of their child’s education to get the support they need. It is also vital if we want to improve outcomes in our education system, and if we want to unleash the talent and creativity of every single young person, for the benefit of our society and our economy.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear from parents who have real concerns about exclusions, which have been mentioned already. Parents want to understand how accountability will work in a future system, particularly in relation to concerns that their children might experience trauma as a result of exclusion. I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s thoughts on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

Accountability is one of the areas that our Committee highlighted in our report last year, which I will speak about in a moment.

Last year we published our inquiry report “Solving the SEND crisis”. The report was based on 900 pieces of written evidence, seven oral evidence sessions, and visits to Ontario in Canada and to schools and colleges implementing innovative good practice in England. In 95 detailed recommendations, our report called for comprehensive change to the SEND system, with a focus on early identification of need, making mainstream schools inclusive for the children with SEND who are already in them, increasing the accountability of the SEND system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) rightly suggests, for schools, local authorities and, importantly, for the NHS, and involving parents and carers in every decision about the support that their children receive.

To date, we have received from the Government only an interim response to our recommendations, so we look forward to receiving their full response in due course. However, we are encouraged that the Government’s SEND reform proposals reflect several of my Committee’s recommendations. It is very welcome that the Government have committed additional resources to SEND support and will effectively be running two parallel systems for a number of years to avoid sharp cliff edges between the old system and the new one. That is the right way to deliver significant reform. I know that the decision to write off 90% of local authority SEND debts also comes as a huge relief.

It is the right approach to prioritise early identification of need, to be seeking to make mainstream schools fully inclusive for the children who are already in them, and to be expanding the availability of provision in the state sector for children who need a place at a specialist school.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, Olivia, is battling for her son to stay in mainstream education, alongside her son’s twin, who is an anchor for him. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we must ensure that ISPs are there quickly to avoid some of the distress of the process as parents battle to keep their children in mainstream settings?

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend speaks very well on behalf of his constituent, whose situation is replicated across the country, which gives urgency to the need to reform our SEND system.

It is the right approach to be increasing the expertise of teaching staff and to be making specialist expertise available to schools whenever they need it. The long waiting times for diagnosis and specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, are one of the most appalling aspects of the current system. Childhood is so short and children should not be seeing years of their education pass them by without the support they need to get the most out of it.

My Committee is undertaking our own scrutiny of the Government’s proposals tomorrow, when we will hear directly in an oral evidence session from witnesses with a wide range of perspectives and expertise. We will write formally to the Government in due course with our reflections following the evidence session.

As I have spoken with parents and the organisations that represent them, I have heard about anxieties with some of the Government’s proposals that I hope the Minister will address today. The proposals involve, over time, a scaling back of EHC assessments and EHCPs, replacing some EHCPs with individual support plans. Parents and carers who I have spoken to are understandably concerned about replacing a statutory plan with an ISP that will not be on a statutory footing. The concern is about how accountability will be guaranteed if there are problems with the ISP, if their child’s needs are not correctly identified, if the ISP that is drafted is not fit for purpose or if it is not being implemented properly.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I am afraid I will not because of the lack of time.

Parents and carers of children with SEND have often been let down so much and by so many different parts of the system that they simply do not trust that anything will work as it should. Their children have rights on paper that are often not upheld in practice. In such a context, accountability matters.

Rebuilding the broken trust and confidence of parents and carers in the SEND system will be critical to the success of the Government’s reforms. It is why my Committee recommended no changes to current rights and entitlements, so that a new system can be built while parents still have the same access to redress to fall back on. I hope that the Minister will speak to the ways in which her reforms are designed to ensure that trust and confidence are rebuilt, and especially that parents and carers know exactly what will happen if things go wrong.

There are also concerns about the proposed reassessment of EHCPs in year 6. The transition from primary to secondary is one of the most high-risk times in a child’s education. We hear time and again from parents who say that starting at secondary school was when their child’s education started to unravel, or that if only they had been able to transport what they had in primary school into secondary school, things might have gone better.

I am grateful to the Minister for the considered and thoughtful approach that she has taken to SEND reform, and for the extensive listening she has undertaken with parents, carers and professionals. The current consultation on draft proposals is an important part of the process and I hope that if it is necessary to make adjustments to the proposals in the light of feedback from the consultation, the Government will be willing to do so. It is so important that these reforms are absolutely right.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit.

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the Lords amendments to the Bill that are of most interest to the Education Committee, following our scrutiny work on the Bill and in relation to a number of other subsequent and ongoing inquiries.

I welcome the decision to place the expansion of the entitlement to free school meals in the Bill. The Education Committee welcomes that expansion, which will increase the number of children who can benefit from a nutritious hot meal in the middle of the day. Combined with the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, it will substantially reduce the scourge of hunger, which harms children’s health and holds back their learning.

My Committee has recommended that the Government introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals. The use of universal credit data, which the Government already hold, would make auto-enrolment much easier to achieve. I urge the Minister to ensure, by implementing auto-enrolment, that no child misses out on the meal to which they are entitled.

I welcome the introduction of a requirement to notify health and education services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. I have seen at first hand many times in my constituency the destabilising impact of temporary accommodation on children’s lives. It is usually the worst quality accommodation and is the most likely to be overcrowded, damp and mouldy. It is often far away from school and friends, with no space to do homework, and brings the constant underlying insecurity of not having a permanent home. It can have profound consequences for children’s health and education, and the new duty to notify is an important first step in ensuring that children can be supported.

[Chris Vince]

I declare an interest, as a member of the Education Committee and a former teacher. I thank the Chair of the Committee for her passionate speech. Does she agree that it is hugely important that teachers are aware when young people in their care are in temporary accommodation, because of the huge impact it can have on their education, as she has suggested?

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. So often we hear from teachers that they recognise a drop in a student’s engagement or performance, but without understanding why.

I welcome the introduction of the new requirements on allergy safety in schools. As the parent of a child who had unexplained allergies in early childhood, I understand some of the fear and anxiety that parents experience when entrusting a child with allergies to a formal setting. There is anxiety about whether allergens will be properly managed, and anxiety about what will happen if their child experiences an allergic reaction. The new requirements will ensure that there is more consistency, improve knowledge and introduce better protocols for managing allergies in schools, so that parents and schools can have more confidence.

I turn to Lords amendment 17 on siblings and foster care. In the Education Committee’s inquiry into children’s social care last year, we heard directly from young people with recent experience of the care system. They told us about the profound impacts of sibling separation. Sibling relationships are very important for looked-after children, who often have experienced trauma and broken relationships with their parents and other family members. Yet far too often, siblings are separated by a care system that struggles, due to funding and lack of capacity, to deliver child-centred care. My Committee was shocked to discover that the Department for Education gathers no data on sibling separation. That is a first and necessary step in seeking to reduce it.

I appreciate that the Government are not yet content with the wording of the amendment on sibling contact, but I urge them to find a way to incorporate stronger requirements for sibling contact to be prioritised and maintained before the Bill reaches the statute book. It is a small change concerning something that should happen anyway, and has the potential to make a big difference to vulnerable children in the care system.

In the short time that remains to me, let me mention just two other matters. The first is the amendment relating to school uniform costs for families. I know what a strain those can be for families who are struggling with the cost of living, and I welcome the Government’s efforts to limit the costs, but I urge the Minister to give a further assurance about the risks of the high costs of specific items. I encountered an egregious case in my constituency, in which a child from an extremely low-income background had been given a place at a school but was told that she could not attend unless she had the appropriate blazer, the cost of which was £100. I hope the Minister can give an indication that the guidance for schools will be strengthened in this regard.

I support robust measures to protect children from social media harms, including raising the age of digital consent and a ban on some social media apps for under-16s, and I support a statutory ban in schools.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I will not, because of the time limit.

However, there are important differences of opinion between stakeholders on the best ways in which to regulate young people’s access to smartphones and social media, so I consider it right for the Government to consult. I welcome the amendments that will allow legislation to be introduced without delay. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some assurances about the timescale for the introduction of legislation following the consultation, which I believe will be necessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.