Village Schools

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered village schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I sought the debate because of the importance of village schools to the lives of many of my families in the Stratford-on-Avon constituency living in rural communities. For many villages, the school is part of the fabric of rural life. It is what keeps a community thriving. It gives children a place of belonging, it brings parents and carers together and it sustains village identity and community cohesion. Many families choose to build their lives in rural south Warwickshire precisely because the village school is there.

Once a village loses its school, something irreplaceable is lost with it. I speak not only as a constituency MP but as someone who has served as a school governor of a small rural school for many years and whose own children attended a village primary. I know how much a child’s early learning environment matters, and for many children a small village school provides a sense of safety and familiarity that lays the foundation for confidence and aspiration. The relatively small size of a village school allows teachers to develop close relationships with pupils and families, to intervene early, and to support children who may otherwise feel lost in larger settings. For children with additional needs or those who struggle with busy environments, that can be transformative.

Rural schools, however, face a particular challenge with fluctuating pupil numbers. Housing developments take time to materialise. A quiet admissions year should never be misinterpreted as evidence that a school lacks potential. With the right support, schools can thrive at the heart of their communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. Not one of us does not have a small rural school; that is really important. I think of Loughries in my constituency—I mentioned it to her before the debate—which is a small hamlet just outside Newtownards. A few years ago, Loughries primary school was under some pressure financially, but it became an integrated primary school whereby it has been able to provide small classes focusing on providing education to rural children and promoting social development.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Department for Education must always ensure that village schools have the funding and support they need so that children and parents in villages can rely on them to get a good education? We must also ensure that any risk of closure through poor funding is never allowed.

Creative Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Opher]

I totally agree. In fact, there is evidence that creativity outside is even more effective for people than inside. This is clearly about access to natural spaces.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on creative health. There is really strong evidence that creativity reduces mental health problems in children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate; he is right to do so. Creative education is so important. Creative education will give thousands of children the opportunity to thrive, and will be the tool that gets them the careers for the future. Those children who have special educational needs must have additional opportunities so they are not left behind, and must have the opportunity also to succeed. Does he agree that helping those people who are less well-off educationally and at a disadvantage is important, and that the opportunity is here, in the creative industries, to do the best for them?

[Dr Opher]

It is interesting that creativity is particularly important for children with special educational needs. Indeed, there is some evidence that including creativity can actually make them attend school on a more regular basis.

I have visited loads of schools in Stroud over the last 18 months, and one common theme has been the rise in mental health problems in young people, who are under countless assessments and the pressure of living in a 24/7 social media world. I do feel that this is pushing a lot of children to the brink, and that creativity may be a way of repairing that. One in five young children has a probable mental health condition, and this figure is rising every year. As a GP, I have been using art to treat mental health in children and adults for about 26 years, quite often with really spectacular results. The lack of art subjects has contributed to this pandemic of mental health problems. The Southbank Centre just across the river is doing a project as we speak around introducing creativity to children who are on the child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists. It will be quite exciting to see whether that can make them better as well.

Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on statutory support for self-employed adoptive parents. Self-employed adopters are currently excluded from any statutory parental pay. For far too long, this exclusion has been overlooked as too niche a problem, but in fact it exposes a much deeper inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works—one that affects not only adoptive families but the wider functioning of the adoption system in England.

This debate comes at an especially challenging time for adopted children and adoptive families. Demand for post-adoption support is rising, including for mental health services, therapeutic help and emotional support, while the availability of those services has become more uncertain, uneven and under-resourced. A recent investigation by the BBC uncovered systemic issues within post-adoption support, highlighting challenges I will cover later in my speech, and which we will no doubt hear about from other Members.

First, though, I would like to address the issue that has led to this debate. There is currently a deep inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works for adoptive families. At present, employed birth parents can access statutory maternity leave and pay; self-employed birth parents can access maternity allowance, which is equivalent to maternity pay; and employed adopters can access statutory adoption leave and pay. Self-employed adopters, however, cannot access any form of statutory adoption leave or pay. The consequence is that self-employed adoptive parents face a uniquely disadvantaged position, with no statutory mechanism enabling them to take time away from work to support a child entering their family—a child who we know is more than likely to have experienced trauma, loss or disruption.

Self-employment now makes up a large part of the workforce, with around 4.4 million people working for themselves across the UK. It is estimated that self-employed adopters make up 10% of adopters annually; given that just over 3,000 adoptions took place last year, that means that hundreds of families a year are being left with no statutory financial support at the moment that they take legal and parental responsibility for a child.

It is important to be clear about what adoption pay is actually for and why it exists. Unlike maternity provision, which has historically been justified by the Government on health and recovery grounds, statutory adoption pay exists for a different purpose altogether. In 2022, the previous Government stated in a written answer that statutory adoption pay is essential to the success of an adoption placement in order that an adopter can take time off work to care for and, most importantly, to bond with their child.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand to ask her permission to intervene and to very quickly give her a Northern Ireland perspective. In Northern Ireland, shared parental leave and pay—SPL and ShPP—are entitlements as financial support for adoptive parents. If one adopter qualifies for statutory adoption pay, couples may share leave or pay under SPL, but that presumes employment under a qualifying employer. Does the hon. Lady agree—I think this is what she is trying to achieve—that under all legally binding work contracts, all employers should be incentivised to ensure that employees can qualify for shared adoption leave, and that there should in fact be an onus on them to do just that?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and particularly for highlighting the case in Northern Ireland. Parental leave and shared parental leave for adopters was something that the previous Government fought hard to bring in, so I agree that that is something that should apply across all our isles. Ultimately, though, that will be for the Minister to talk about; I am guessing it is probably a devolved issue, but no doubt it will come up in his remarks a bit later.

As I was saying, in 2022 the previous Government stated that it is essential to the success of an adoption placement that the adopter takes time off work in order to care for and bond with their child. That principle must be fairly applied regardless of whether a parent is employed or self-employed.

For self-employed adoptive families, the negative consequences of this disparity are clear. Evidence gathered by Home for Good and Adoption UK through the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence found that 60% of self-employed adopters reported that the absence of financial support directly limited the amount of leave they could take at the start of adoption, and in some cases it prevented them from taking leave altogether following the adoption. In practical terms, that means returning to work within days or weeks of placement, despite being advised by professionals that it is best for them to take time off work to be able to support their child once they are placed. One self-employed adopter summed up the pressure, saying:

“We have been through two separate adoptions. The second time I had no choice but to keep working. I sometimes took my son with me. It was very hard.”

The APPG’s research also found that around two thirds—63%—of prospective self-employed adopters said that the lack of statutory provision played a major role in delaying or preventing them from proceeding with adoption in the first place. Nearly half of self-employed adopters said that it prevented them from adopting again, while others explained that they could not consider adopting their child’s sibling because the financial impact of taking extended time away from work was simply too great. As a result, children are being unnecessarily separated from their siblings. One family said:

“We have already been approached to adopt another sibling and had to say no because there was no financial package available to help.”

Further research from the APPG found that the majority—59%—of self-employed adopters reported stopping work altogether for a period once a child was placed with them. They did so not as a lifestyle choice, but because the intensity of needs made continued self-employment impossible.

For many families, the absence of statutory provision creates profound pressure at precisely the moment the emotional and practical demands of adoption are at their highest. As one parent explained:

“Not having an equivalent to maternity allowance meant the pressure on us was increased, at a time when the pressure on our family was already very high. We didn’t have access to the kind of mental or financial ‘breather’ that a secure income for a set period might have given us. Inevitably it made the whole early placement period more stressful.”

That strain is reflected in reported anxiety levels among prospective self-employed adopters, who on average rated their financial worry during the adoption process a seven out of 10. Established self-employed adopters also report elevated anxiety, rating it a six out of 10, showing that stress does not end once placement is secured but often continues long afterwards in the absence of statutory support. Those findings must be understood within the broader context of adoption pressures; it is not just about parental leave.

As of September this year, 2,940 children with a placement order were waiting to be matched with an adoptive family in England, and average waiting times from entering care to placement with a family exceeded 20 months. If Government policy is deterring capable families from coming forward to adopt, this does not only disadvantage adopters themselves but, most importantly, directly affects the life prospects of children, who remain in temporary care arrangements for longer than necessary. That is in part because the system has made permanency through adoption unaffordable for too many who would otherwise open their home.

As I said at the start, the lack of statutory support for self-employed adopters cannot be considered in isolation from the adoption system as a whole. I am concerned that adoption is still treated as something that ends at placement, rather than as a responsibility that continues for a lifetime. Nearly all adoptive families say that more must be done to ensure that children feel safe and secure as they grow up, and over half report that support drops away once the adoption order is made.

There is cross-party recognition that adoption cannot be treated as a single moment in a child’s life. It is not simply a legal process that ends with an order; it is the beginning of a lifelong journey for both the child and the family that welcomes them. When we reduce adoption to a one-off placement, we overlook the ongoing needs that often emerge long after the order is made.

If we are serious about giving adopted children the best possible start, we must be honest about the nature of adoption itself. It is a lifelong commitment that requires consistent, compassionate and accessible support. Families should not have to fight for the help that allows their children to flourish. Adoption should be backed by a commitment from all of us to stand with these families not just at the beginning but throughout the years that follow.

Current practice too often fails adopted families at moments of vulnerability. Many adoptive parents report long waits for mental health services, difficulty accessing meaningful support, inconsistent local authority approaches and a lack of trauma-informed provision in schools. We need an adoption system that sticks with adopted children and their families over the long term and is flexible and responsive to their changing needs as they face challenges across these areas. These problems affect all adopters, employed and self-employed alike, but their financial impact is unevenly distributed. All of that is being compounded by the sudden and unexpected changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund announced in April, which significantly reduced the post-adoption support many adoptive families reply on, including families in my constituency, contributing to a growing sense of uncertainty and a weakening of trust towards the system.

For families who cannot afford private help, the situation becomes even more difficult, and the financial strain quickly grows. Many simply have no way to cover the costs of therapy on their own. For the self-employed, the pressure is even greater because this burden arrives at the same time as the lack of statutory pay, leaving them with fewer options and even less stability. For self-employed adopters, the impact is even heavier, because any time taken away from work to help support children can immediately affect their income. When post-adoption support is withdrawn, they cannot rely on payroll to cushion the loss. Instead, they absorb it through missed work, reduced earnings and unpaid days spent trying to manage crises on their own.

Self-employed adopters are navigating a range of interconnected pressures that overlap, intensify each other and shape every part of their experience. Local authority practice reflects the same fragmentation. Support for self-employed adopters varies wildly depending on where families live. Freedom of information requests reveal that one third of councils have no policy in place at all to support self-employed adopters, and the remaining councils referred to using a means-tested approach to assessing the need for financial help. In those council areas, 90% of adopters were not informed that local support might be available. This produces an arbitrary system in which families adopting can experience different outcomes depending on postcode rather than need.

This Adjournment debate follows a recent Westminster Hall debate brought about by an e-petition on maternity and paternity pay, where Members, including me, explicitly raised the position of self-employed adoptive families. The Government have indicated that a review of parental leave and pay is under way and that the issues raised through the recent parliamentary debate will inform this process. If that review is to be taken seriously by adoptive families, it must look properly at the position of self-employed adopters, rather than letting their needs disappear into maternity and paternity reform more generally. Clarity is essential.

Adoption pay cannot be an optional extra. It ensures that adopters can establish stability, attachment and routine with a child who may have experienced disruption, neglect or loss. It enables parents to be present, rather than forced to divide their attention between the urgent demands of work and the equally urgent demands of care.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about these issues, which is why this debate is a good opportunity to raise them. First, will the review formally assess the position of self-employed adopters as a distinct category within the parental leave and pay review? Secondly, will the Government evaluate the introduction of a statutory entitlement equivalent to maternity allowance for self-employed adopters? Thirdly, can he provide an indication of the timescale for publication of the review’s findings? Finally, I urge the Government to reverse their disastrous decision to reduce the funding available through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Policy choices must support adoption and adoptive families. Enterprise and self-employment should also be encouraged. Self-employed adoptive families should not be penalised. The removal of avoidable barriers to adoption, while enabling business to flourish, must be a priority.

Evacuation Chairs: Schools and Colleges

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

Yes, absolutely. I will come on to some of the legislation later, but the hon. Member highlights a really important issue and I know that he is a big supporter in this space, so I thank him for that intervention.

Fire and rescue services in England attended 417 primary fires in education premises in the last financial year; primary fires are generally more serious fires causing damage to property or harm to people. Of these primary fires, 355 were accidental fires and 62 were deliberate. When we look at the current legal and guidance framework, the gaps become clear.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I did not know that you would be chairing Westminster Hall. I wish you well.

The provision of evacuation chairs is imperative—all schools and colleges, across the whole of the United Kingdom, must have them for pupils, staff and visitors. Furthermore, where evacuation chairs exist, staff must be trained in their use. Without mandatory training, the presence of a chair alone does not ensure safety. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be an adequate number of staff trained in the use of these chairs so that schools can make full and proper use of them in the event of an emergency?

[Jacob Collier]

I agree with the hon. Member—he must have read what is coming up in my speech. He is absolutely right, and I will come to that point.

Under the Equality Act 2010, schools have duties to avoid substantial disadvantage for disabled pupils, but they are not required to make any physical changes to features of the building for individual children. Instead, they must prepare long-term accessibility plans that look years ahead. That means that a multi-storey school does not have to provide an immediate safe route for a specific child who cannot use stairs. Fire safety legislation requires responsible persons to ensure that everyone can escape safely, but it does not specify how. It does not mandate personal emergency evacuation plans—or PEEPs—for pupils who cannot self-evacuate. It does not require evacuation chairs. It still allows the use of refuge rooms, even though children cannot be left alone in them and cannot legally be lifted by staff.

Current guidance for the evacuation of disabled pupils is simply not sufficient, as has been highlighted by Lucas’s experience. In many cases, PEEPs do not identify the need for evacuation chairs, which means that schools conclude the equipment is unnecessary and therefore never purchase it. PEEPs vary widely in quality, and often lack a clear method for onward evacuation. They need to be significantly strengthened.

In 2015, the Equality and Human Rights Commission commented that schools were in effect exempt from removing barriers to extraction during emergency. That exemption explains why so many pupils remain unprotected. There is also a profound accountability gap: no single regulator or public body is charged with assessing whether disabled pupils can be evacuated safely. No one is tasked with checking whether reasonable adjustments have been made for the purpose of extraction. Ofsted does not inspect evacuation readiness or assess whether disabled pupils can leave a building in an emergency. In that vacuum, schools are left to interpret a patchwork of rules that are not abundantly clear. In a response to a written question from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the Department for Education stated:

“Schools and their responsible bodies are not obliged to notify the department of fires at their premises and we therefore do not routinely collect or record this data…nor information on fire-safety-related repairs.”

PEEPs are not legally mandated in schools. They are planned to become mandatory for residential buildings following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, but remain non-mandatory in school environments, which have the highest numbers of individuals who cannot self-evacuate. That contrast should concern every Member of this House. In some circumstances, staying put and awaiting the fire service is the safest approach. When someone dials 999, fire control operators will issue that safety advice. In Lucas’s case it was not even recognised where he was in the building. That highlights a need for a clearer process for everybody to follow so that all people are accounted for and safely evacuated.

Evacuation chairs are not suitable for every disabled pupil, but they are a safe and internationally recognised non-lifting method for bringing a person downstairs in an emergency. When a child cannot use stairs and has a lesson on the upper floor, the school must have a safe evacuation method. It should not fall on teachers to improvise solutions when an alarm is sounding and smoke is spreading, and it should not fall on a child to wait in fear and hope that someone will remember that they are upstairs.

This petition is measured in its request. It does not call for every school to purchase equipment that is not relevant to their buildings; it calls for evacuation chairs or equivalent equipment to be required when a pupil’s needs make them necessary. It also calls for personal emergency evacuation plans to be prepared for those who cannot self-evacuate and, crucially, for them to contain a clear method for reaching safety. Finally, it calls for a clear national standard, so that schools are not guessing what is expected of them.

The Labour Government have committed to building safer and more inclusive public services, and we promise to learn the lessons of the Grenfell tragedy. We also promise that no one who cannot self-evacuate will be left without proper planning. Schools must be a part of that commitment.

Today, I urge the Government to act. We must ensure that personal emergency evacuation plans are required for every pupil or staff member who cannot self-evacuate. A personal emergency evacuation plan must set out the equipment, the route, the timing and the staff support needed. We must establish national expectations for evacuation equipment—not just a blanket rule, but a clear principle that when a child is taught on an upper floor and cannot use stairs, their school must provide a safe assisted evacuation method.

We must provide consistent guidance and high-quality training, so that staff know exactly what to do. We must make accountability meaningful. It must be clear which organisation checks whether disabled pupils can be evacuated and whether reasonable adjustments have been made for that purpose. Finally, we must design these policies with disabled pupils, their families and school staff at the centre. They know better than any of us what a safe and dignified evacuation looks like.

I will close my remarks by quoting the end of Lucas’s poem—with a plea that we cannot ignore:

“So hear my voice through smoke and ash

Make sure the next can make a dash

For no one’s life should end in flame

Because the world forgot their name”.

Our responsibility as legislators and as a Government is not only to remember the names but to protect those children, to ensure that no child is ever forgotten in a refuge room, and to build a system where a disabled pupil is not an afterthought but a child whose safety is guaranteed. We need to ensure that no student is ever left behind like Lucas was.

I thank those who took the time to meet me in preparation for this debate, and I especially thank Nick and Lucas. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members, and to Ministers turning this petition into meaningful action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I would love to do that, but sadly what we have heard from the Conservatives this afternoon demonstrates the challenge we face as a Government in engaging seriously on these big and deep questions. We will always engage with Members of Parliament from across the House as we bring forward reforms, but I suggest that the hon. Member asks his hon. Friends to get serious about making change happen.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The NSPCC revealed that in 2022-23 some 9,000 sexual abuse offences that were recorded by police involved an online element. What has been done in schools to improve children’s safety online and to ensure that whatever changes need to be made are made now?

[Josh MacAlister]

Strengthening our child protection system is a key priority for this Government. Very soon we will bring forward plans for the child protection authority. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains a number of measures that would make a big difference to the safety of children across the UK, although those measures are unfortunately being blocked and frustrated by colleagues in other corners of this House.

SEND Provision: Kent

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend’s experience is similar to mine. My postbag reflects a kind of ongoing unresponsiveness, which results in people feeling that they are just lost in the system. That is entirely unacceptable.

On a slightly different theme, for SEND children who wish to access a grammar school education in Kent, KCC seems to be refusing requests for extra time for the 11-plus test, in breach of the Equality Act 2010, and without giving any reasons. It is the law that extra time must be granted if a reasonable adjustment is required under that Act, yet Kent’s special access panel unfairly puts roadblocks in the way, stifling opportunities for our young people. The failures stretch beyond Folkestone and Hythe; they blight every corner of Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said. This is county-wide neglect, shrouded in excuses.

I am not blind to the scale of the challenges, but I will not excuse the years of inaction and mismanagement, first under the Tories and now under Reform UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this debate. He is quite right to outline the issue of the growing demand and the complexity of needs. Similar things are happening in all of the United Kingdom, as indicated by the 51% increase in the number of SEND cases in Northern Ireland in seven years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is perhaps now time for a completely different approach to SEND? Does he also agree that the educational needs of and opportunities for children must be prioritised and funded? Otherwise, we will consign a group of children to a life of feeling not good enough and not achieving enough.

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely why we need wholesale change in the system, which is what the Government are preparing to consult on. We will of course listen carefully to the proposals when they come forward.

Let me talk briefly about the system in Kent. Nationally, the demand for SEND support has grown, and EHCP requests have surged by 140% since 2015, as per the National Audit Office. In 2022, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission handed down an improvement notice for nine glaring SEND failings in Kent. KCC scrambled to implement an accelerated progress plan and, after Government scrutiny in 2024, the notice was lifted. But still: where are the real improvements? My postbag tells a starkly different story.

I must raise concerns about the safety valve programme. The 2021 deal between the Department for Education and KCC was supposed to plug deficits, but in practice it has often made it even harder for families to access vital support. In areas like Kent with safety valve deals, EHCPs have become harder to obtain and parents are forced to jump over ever-higher hurdles. The priorities of the safety valve programme mean that financial savings are trumping the needs of children in Kent.

Support for Dyslexic Pupils

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for setting the scene. Nothing tells a story better than personal stories, and both Members gave us their thoughts on where we should be. By doing so, they inspire others out there who have dyslexia, and perhaps other issues, who can maybe say to themselves, “If he or she can do that, perhaps I can do the same.” I know that is the ambition of both Members and hope it will be the case.

I am pretty sure I am the oldest person present; I can look back to the early ’60s as a child at Ballywalter primary school. I remember it well. The boys all tended to play together and the girls played together—maybe that was the way it was back in those days—and there were young boys who definitely had issues. I never knew what they were and never once understood their problems, but I do understand that they had some of the symptoms of dyslexia, and perhaps other things as well. Looking back, I do not think anybody knew what dyslexia, autism or any other issues were. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) referred to people saying, “They’ll grow out of it”—I heard those words often from the teachers—but they did not.

I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do in these debates, because it adds to the information and helps the Minster—who has no responsibility at all for Northern Ireland—to understand what we have there. The issue of dyslexia impacts every region of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although Northern Ireland does not fall under the direct remit of the Department for Education, sharing information and best practice is vital to ensure that we arm those with dyslexia to fight their way to their chosen career, without the limitation of how they learn affecting their outcomes. The fact is—we all believe this—that they can achieve their goals and job expectations. That is what education should and must do.

In Northern Ireland, studies suggest that unfortunately some 25% of pupils may have some form of dyslexic-type difficulty, while around 10% require additional support. Similar to what others have said, in the 2020-21 school year, over 9,300 children in Northern Ireland were officially listed as having dyslexia or specific literacy difficulties.

The way we view dyslexia has changed massively in recent years, and that is good news. They know what it is now. They did not know when I was at school, back in the ’60s and early ’70s, but it is good news that they know now. Dyslexia is no longer a barrier to education, but we must see it as a different route within education so that people can achieve. This debate is about how that happens, and how they do it here on the mainland.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) referred to Jamie Oliver and his event in the Churchill Room; just listen to the story he told and the success he has had. It is not just him; we should look at Lord Sugar and Richard Branson, who are very successful businessmen. Holly Willoughby is successful as a presenter, as is Keira Knightley as an actress. Even our own Princess Beatrice, who delivers speeches so beautifully, speaks eloquently on this issue. When we look at the examples of those who have done well, we must say, “If they can do it, then I’ll tell you what: we can do it as well!” We can see that there is no barrier—and there should be no barrier—to success when we give children the tools to their own learning to help them to succeed and achieve.

It is important to focus on early support and intervention. When it comes to dyslexia, identifying the signs early can make a world of difference. By spotting indicators early, we can create the tailored pathways that help children to thrive in their education and personal development. A bit more time spent now will help them to achieve their dreams and goals. This can and must happen.

I wish the Minister well in responding to the debate. I do not doubt for one second her commitment to try to do better. Schools also need support. Reading recovery schemes are essential, as is ensuring that early years teachers can spot the signs and signpost for assessment and help. The earlier we can spot the need, the easier the intervention will be. The hopes are that by high school time, the child will understand their needs and get support, ranging from a scribe to simply getting their tests on a different kind of paper—something so small can make a big difference.

I conclude with this, Ms Butler, because that cough of yours is getting worse—I say that very kindly. [Laughter.] Schools need the funding and expertise to get the tools right for each child, and that can come only with a confident system in place. We all look to the Minister to provide guidance and support for schools; will she also share that with us in Northern Ireland?

Sixth-form Provision: Bolsover

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sixth form provision in Bolsover constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.

Residents of Bolsover must feel like they have déjà vu. My predecessor, Mark Fletcher, first raised the need for a sixth form in Bolsover in Parliament on 2 March 2020. On 7 March 2023, he spoke in this very Chamber about the need for Bolsover to have its own sixth form. On 6 September 2023, the then Prime Minister congratulated Mark on getting a sixth form. So the question that residents rightly ask is: why are we here today? Why have I raised this issue in Parliament five times in the past year? Why have I met Ministers and the Education Secretary to make representations? Why are Andrew Burns, the chief executive officer of Redhill Academy Trust, and Richard Pierpoint, the regional director, here with us to see this debate today?

As one resident succinctly put it, getting the promise is one thing, but making sure that that promise is delivered is another thing entirely. Despite Mark’s determined campaign and the tireless work of The Bolsover school executive headteacher Matt Hall, who sadly cannot be with us today because he has an Ofsted inspection, the previous Government’s promises have not been delivered.

Although I wish I was here congratulating Mark as new pupils enter North Derbyshire university academy, I saw as soon as I was elected that I needed to take up the baton. I will not rest until the young people of Bolsover, Clowne, Shirebrook, Creswell and the surrounding villages have the sixth form that they so desperately need.

Why is this so important? For far too many of our young people, Bolsover today is a story of unfilled potential. Bolsover covers a huge area, from Pinxton to Whitwell, Shirebrook to Wessington, yet there is no sixth form. When it comes to barriers to opportunity, surely one of the biggest is that the closest sixth form is a 30-minute bus ride away at a cost of £25 a week. The inability to access any form of education past the age of 16 without getting on one or two buses and travelling for up to an hour is why so few teenagers attend a school sixth form—only 25% from The Bolsover school, 13% from Heritage high school in Clowne and just 8% from Shirebrook academy do so. For those who live anywhere else in the country, the average figure is three times higher than for Shirebrook.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate and for her campaigning in this Chamber, which has clearly been instrumental—the people here and those at home watching will be greatly inspired by her, so well done. In my constituency in Ards, we need to ensure that our teenagers have support and sound career advice for the next steps, including in the sixth-form college at Regent House school and the South Eastern Regional college; the King’s Trust works alongside schools there. I know that the Minister is always looking for examples of good work, so may I suggest, through the hon. Lady, that he looks at the good things we are doing in Northern Ireland that could address the very issues she is working so well to address for her constituents?

Care Leavers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

I completely agree. As we move through this debate today, I think a theme that will shine through is the need to get rid of what is often a postcode lottery for care leavers.

I want to recognise some of the good work that the Government have already done in this area. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marks an important step forward in ensuring that support for care leavers endures beyond the age of 18. I welcome the requirement for local authorities to publish a full care offer for care leavers, which will offer clarity and direction. I know that there is already some good practice from my own council in Doncaster, with comprehensive offers of support, including the Staying Put and Staying Close initiatives.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; I spoke to her beforehand. Does she agree that those leaving care may not have had the financial advice and instruction that they should have had and that many of us take for granted? It is imperative that they are taught how to be self-reliant and are able to manage their finances by themselves. Does she further agree that such classes should also teach these vulnerable young people, who do not have a family to help and protect them, how to protect themselves financially and physically from those who would seek to target them?

[Sally Jameson]

I agree. I think it comes back to the fact that the offer is very different in different areas, and that is something we all want to address.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers, and I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for setting the scene so very well. We in Northern Ireland are very keen to learn from the education system here. I believe that the Education Minister from the Northern Ireland Assembly—he is a colleague in my party, by the way, so I understand his interests in these matters—will be keen to listen to and hear the suggestion put forward by the Minister. Will the Minister share his ideas for Hartlepool with us in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can all benefit in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Josh MacAlister]

In another part of my brief, I am already in touch with Ministers in devolved nations regarding children’s social care, and I would be very happy also to share wider learning from the school rebuilding programme.